r.VERNMENT INPDRMATiON CGMTEH
SAM FRANCISCO PUBLIC UBtfARY
SAN FRANCISCO
PUBLIC LIBRARY
REFERENCE
BOOK
Nol to be lukcn from the Li bran'
I 2 20011
Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2014
https://archive.org/details/performanceaudit1 1 1 9sanf
Public Library,Gov't Info. Ctr., 5th Fir.
Performance Audit
of the
San Francisco Zoo
GOVERNMENT INFORMATION CWTPR
SAN FRANCJSCO PU6UC LIBRARY
SAN FRANCISCO
PUBLIC LIBRARY
REFERENCE
BOOK
Not /o be taken from the Library
Prepared for the
Board of Supervisors
by the
Board of Supervisors Budget Analyst
1390 Market Street, Suite 1025
San Francisco, CA 94102
(415) 554-7642
January 2000
REF
712. 5
P416
DOCUMENTS DEP71
JAN 1 2 2000
SAN FRANCISCO
PUBLIC LIBRARY
Public Library,Gov't inf0, Ctr., 5th Fir.
Performance Audit
of the
San Francisco Zoo
Prepared for the
Board of Supervisors
by the
Board of Supervisors Budget Analyst
1390 Market Street, Suite 1025
San Francisco, CA 94102
(415) 554-7642
January 2000
REF
712.5
P416
DOCUMENTS DEP1
JAN 1 2 2000
SAN FRANCISCO
PUBLIC LIBRARY
SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC LIBRARY
111
3 1223 05612 7435
CITY AND COUNT
V
Oh SAN FRANCISCO
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
1390 Market Street, Suite 1025, San Francisco, CA 94102 (415) 554-7642
FAX (415) 252-0461
January 11, 1999
Honorable Tom Ammiano, President
and Members of the Board of Supervisors
City and County of San Francisco
Room 244, City Hall
1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place
San Francisco, California 94102-4689
Dear President Ammiano and Members of the Board of Supervisors:
Transmitted herewith is the Budget Analyst's Performance Audit Report of the San
Francisco Zoological Gardens, which is under the management of the San Francisco
Zoological Society. This management audit was conducted in accordance with
Charter Section 2.114, which authorizes the Board of Supervisors to make inquiries
concerning departmental operations.
In total, this report presents 15 findings containing 75 recommendations organized
in four separate categories. The four categories are: (1) Animal Management and
Care; (2) Visitor Services; (3) Objectives, Goals, and Compliance Responsibilities;
and (4) Financial Management. If fully implemented by the Zoological Society,
these recommendations would result in one-time cost savings of approximately
$4.53 million, $3.73 million of which can be reallocated to construction of priority
capital improvements and $800,000 that should be transferred to a construction
contingency account to increase the amount allocated for that purpose to an
appropriate level. In addition, we have identified San Francisco Zoological Society
operating budget savings in the amount of approximately $197,857 that can be
reallocated to high priority Zoo needs, such as facilities maintenance. Further,
annual savings in the amount of approximately $50,000 would result from the
timely payment by the Zoological Society of the City's billings for sewer service
charges and other utilit3r expenses.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
7 45243 SFPL: ECONO JRS
206 SFPL 11/22/00 93
Honorable Tom Ammiano, President
and Members of the Board of Supervisors
January 11, 1999
Page 2
A complete list of the Zoo's reported accomplishments is contained in the
Introduction Section of our report beginning on page vi. Some of the Zoo's
significant accomplishments are as follows:
• The quality of animal care has improved since the Zoological Society assumed
management in 1993. The veterinary program has improved dramatically. The
veterinarians have an excellent working relationship with the Animal Keepers.
The Animal Keepers are professional, knowledgeable, and caring as a group. An
independent evaluation was completed by Dr. Joel Parrott, the Oakland Zoo
Director, retained by the Budget Analyst. Dr. Parrott, who is also a zoo
veterinarian, concluded that veterinary care at the San Francisco Zoo is
excellent and general care is good.
• The Zoo has an excellent animal acquisition and loan policy. In fact, the Zoo's
policy is used as an example in the American Zoological Association's
"Suggestions for Implementation of the AZA Animal Disposition Guidelines."
• The Zoological Society raised $11,494,465 against the $10 million minimum
Founders' Fund commitment and expended in excess of $7 million for operations
in each of the first five years of the Management Agreement.
• The Zoo's admission fees appear to be reasonable compared to other zoos and
facilities catering to families and children in the Bay Area. In the case of its
resident child and senior admission prices, the Zoo was one of the lowest priced
facilities of those surveyed. According to the May 1999 visitor survey, 82 percent
of respondents rated value for admission price as "excellent" or "good."
• We found that, in general, the Development Department has been able to meet
its fundraising goals for annual operating expenses. In addition, the Zoological
Society has raised approximately $21 million of the $25 million required for
capital improvements under the lease agreement, including written,
contingency, and verbal pledges.
Notwithstanding the notable accomplishments that the Zoological Society has
achieved, the Budget Analyst has identified various findings and has made
appropriate recommendations as summarized below.
Summary of Management Audit Findings
Section 1: Animal Management & Care
Animal Management and Care is the primary business of zoos. Accordingly, we
examined the status of animal management and care to determine whether 1) the
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
Honorable Tom Ammiano, President
and Members of the Board of Supervisors
January 11, 1999
Page 3
management and care of the animals of the San Francisco Zoo are in accordance
with applicable regulations and good practices, and 2) the Animal Management
Department is accomplishing its objectives and goals in an economical and efficient
manner.
Section 1.1: Animal Management & Care
• There are a number of animal exhibits that are out-of-date and can .only be
considered minimal facilities. The most glaring deficiencies in housing and
exhibit design are the chimpanzees, orangutans, elephants, bears, sea lions,
hippopotamus, giraffe, and siamang. All of these are recognized as minimal
facilities by current Zoo management. All, with the exception of the bears and
sea lions, are scheduled for new facilities within Phase II ($73 million) of the
Master Plan. Somewhere in-between are the enclosures for the greater cats.
Although the Lion House is a public sentimental favorite, it is clearly dated in
concept and design. The animal holding and exhibit facilities should be
considered adequate but minimal. Many of the facilities overall show a lack of
general maintenance. Rust is a major problem with the Sloat Boulevard location.
• A significant concern is that of the sea lion pool and bear grottos. The polar
bears and Kodiak bear do not appear in the Master Plan. However, the collection
plan indicates maintaining the polar bears, with the possibility of replacing the
Kodiak bear with a grizzly bear. Since Phase II of the Master Plan is scheduled
to be completed by the end of 2004, this means that the bears will be in the
existing grottos for ten years, and possibly longer. This is also true of the sea
lion and harbor seal exhibits. A decision should be made as expeditiously as
possible on whether these species will be part of the Master Plan. If the seals
and northern bears are not part of the long-term plan for the Zoo, the animals
should be relocated to other institutions with better facilities. The bear grottos
should then be removed. If the animals are part of the Master Plan, the existing
facilities should be removed and new state-of-the-art bear and sea lion exhibits
constructed. Ten to fifteen years is too long to address these concerns.
• An elephant restraint chute, which is used to immobilize and support elephants
in order to perform certain procedures, and which can be relocated into the new
exhibit when that facility is completed, is needed for the African elephants. This
will address a current limitation of the existing facilities for African elephant
management.
• A survey of Animal Keepers to solicit ideas on improving animal and animal-
related management produced a number of excellent ideas for improving such
management and also reinforced our observations concerning several
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
Honorable Tom Ammiano, President
and Members of the Board of Supervisors
January 11, 1999
Page 4
management issues. Among the more significant findings of the survey are that
1) morale among the various Animal Keeper Sections varies between reasonably
good to extremely poor; 2) standards for selecting new animal keepers should be
established, 3) there is a perceived wide variance in the performance of various
Animal Keepers and a perceived wide variance in what is demanded of various
Animal Keepers; 4) many animal keepers believe that their experiences and
opinions concerning animal management are not sufficiently appreciated or
considered prior to initiating animal management policies or implementing
animal management projects; and 5) Animal Keepers have a high degree of
confidence in the Zoo's Veterinarian and believe that the veterinary care
afforded the animals is of the highest order.
• The leadership of the Board of Directors is aware of the existing morale
problems, and recognizes that the existing organizational climate needs to
improve greatly if the organization is to move forward. The Zoological Society
has recently hired top-level management staff to improve operations and
communications within the Zoo organization. Also, a consultant has been
retained to assist in conflict resolution.
• Animal Keepers believe that the Zoo's greatest strength lies in its dedicated,
talented, staff. The Education Center, the Animal Resource Center (ARC), and
the Children's Zoo are mentioned prominently. Also, the Zoo's location is rated a
plus.
• Animal Keepers would like to see, and believe the public would appreciate, more
animals.
• Zoo management has not responded appropriately to non-compliance citations
resulting from inspections conducted by the U.S. Department of Agriculture-
Animal & Plant Health Inspection Service (USDA-APHIS). Since 1992, the Zoo
has received one official warning "ticket," five letters of warning, and two
warning statements on inspection reports from the USDA-APHIS. Most of these
deficiencies dealt with repeated maintenance problems, such as wire mesh
rusting in the Primate Discovery Center and deterioration in the walls of the
Asian Rhino housing area. Zoo management has recently initiated a better
working relationship with the USDA-APHIS, beginning with a meeting with
USDA representatives in July of 1999.
• Zoo management has still not decided whether African elephants or Asian
elephants or both will be part of the long-term plan. This will need to be decided
very soon, because elephant facilities occupy a central role in the thematic
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
3 1223 05612 7435
Honorable Tom Ammiano, President
and Members of the Board of Supervisors
January 11, 1999
Page 5
display, and will consume a significant portion of the space, funding, and energy
of the Zoo. In addition, the elephant facilities are particularly inadequate.
• One of the most important considerations for animal management is the
microclimate along Sloat Boulevard and the Great Highway. The toll that the
weather (cool, wind, fog, and salt air) takes on the structures is mentioned in the
accreditation report, as is the potential for the weather's affect on the animals'
health. Zoo staff at all levels were asked if the primates seemed generally
comfortable or uncomfortable in this climate, to see if the clinical picture
suggested that these temperatures might be too low for these animals. The
general impression of staff is that the animals acclimate to the climate and do
well (even those that are tropical species). Primates are exhibited in other areas
in temperate North America and voluntarily go outside when temperatures
approach freezing. An advantage of this site is that the average low temperature
in the coldest month is 45 degrees. It has rarely reached freezing.
• A site visit to the bison exhibit revealed a group of animals that appear to be in
very good health. General care of the animals themselves appears to be good,
although it was difficult to make full observations due to the generally poor
condition of the site. A few piles of animal waste were present which should have
been removed. The bison exhibit physical site appeared worn and overgrown.
Much of the site was overgrown with weeds, and fencing appeared old and in
some cases appeared to be oriented for some previous function. "Do Not Feed"
signage was present but poorly displayed. Plans for new fencing and, more
importantly, restoration of the main field are in place and scheduled for
construction. The Bison Watch Committee volunteers have contributed project
support and general maintenance work (weed pulling etc.) but would like to see
more support for the facility. The facility improvements could be achieved at
minor cost.
• Annual performance evaluations have not been regularly completed for most
Animal Keepers.
• According to a comprehensive evaluation of animal care at the San Francisco
Zoo conducted by Dr. Joel Parrott, Director of the Oakland Zoo and a zoo
veterinarian, veterinary care at the San Francisco Zoo is excellent and general
care is good. The greatest deficiency in animal care remains the physical plant.
Section 1.2: Animal Acquisitions and Dispositions
• The Zoo's acquisition/disposition practices have resulted in a significant
reduction in the number of animals in the Zoo's collection. Excluding fishes and
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
Honorable Tom Ammiano, President
and Members of the Board of Supervisors
January 11, 1999
Page 6
invertebrates, the number of Zoo animals decreased from 1,371 in 1972-73 to
895 in 1988-89 to 630 in 1997-98, a total decrease of 54 percent. The mammal
count included in the total decreased from 558 in 1972-72, to 438 in 1988-89, to
276 in 1997-98, a total decrease of 51 percent. The General Curator has stated
that the Zoo currently holds the species and specimens that it can care for
properly and that the Zoo's collection of mammal and bird specimens will be
increasing with implementation of Phase II of the Master Plan.
• In June of 1997, the Director of the San Francisco Zoo decided to request that
the Asian elephant "Calle" be relocated to the San Francisco Zoo from the Los
Angeles Zoo prior to obtaining the final results of a general health blood profile
and a blood test to screen for tuberculosis. The decision to request shipment of
the elephant prior to completion of health testing was a mistake; further tests
revealed that Calle had contracted tuberculosis. As of August 1999, the cost of
treating Calle's tubercular condition has been $115,177, not including staff time.
The Los Angeles Zoo has contributed $30,000 toward that cost.
• The Zoo's practices governing animal acquisition, loan, and disposition actions
should be amended to assure that such transactions fully provide for the well
being of the animals. In that regard, we found that:
1. The Zoo does not require American Zoological Association (AZA) facilities
requesting Zoo animals to complete an application form. Further, the Zoo
does not require non-AZA members to notify the Zoo of the death or
relocation of an animal that had been previously relocated to the non-AZA
member by the Zoo. These provisions are recommended in the AZA
Guidelines.
2. The Zoo's "Animal Disposition Agreement," which is the contract form used
to bind both AZA and non-AZA recipients of Zoo animals, does not include
reference to the AZA's Code of Professional Ethics nor does the Agreement
contain the AZA's recommended language requiring the acquiring
organization not to sell, trade, loan, or donate the acquired animal to any
inhumane research program.
3. The Zoo's Animal Acquisition/Disposition Guidelines contain evaluation
forms with appropriate questions for evaluating proposed
acquisition/disposition actions. However, Zoo management does not
currently complete the evaluation forms in writing.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
Honorable Tom Ammiano, President
and Members of the Board of Supervisors
January 11, 1999
Page 7
Section 1.3: Capital Projects
• In response to the Budget Analyst's recommendations to increase Phase II
Master Plan funding for increased construction of capital projects, the Zoological
Society has made design changes to the new Administration, Quarantine, and
Holding facilities. This has resulted in an additional $687,000 that will become
available for construction of animal exhibits.
• The current Phase II budget allocates approximately 4.9 percent of total
construction costs of $48 million to Program Management, which is being
performed by an outside consultant, and 3.9 percent of such costs to Zoological
Society Administration, for a total of approximately 8.8 percent, or $4,215,434.
Further, the current Phase II budget allocates approximately 7.8 percent of total
construction costs, or $3,747,052, to Construction Management, which would be
performed by the Department of Public Works (DPW). Thus, the total budgeted
cost for these functions is currently 16.6 percent of total Phase II funding, or
$7,962,486. We recommend that this combined total of 16.6 percent be reduced
to 10 percent, or $4,800,000, in accordance with attainable program and
construction management cost containment practices and in accordance with the
Zoo Bond Program Report, thereby allowing an additional $3.16 million to be
expended on construction of capital improvement projects.
• The current Phase II budget allocates approximately 13 percent of total
construction costs to Design Fees, based on a combination of a 14 percent factor
for specialized animal facilities design and a 12 percent factor for all other
projects. The total amount allocated for Design Fees, is $6,235,722. We
recommend that the combined percentage of 13 percent be reduced to 12 percent,
which would produce savings of $480,000, which can be used for the construction
of additional capital improvement projects.
• The current Phase II budget allocates two percent of allowable Phase II
construction costs calculated at $40 million, or $800,000, to the Public Art
Program. The Zoological Society should negotiate with the Art Commission to
reduce the percentage to 1.5 percent, thereby saving $200,000.
• $800,000 of the approximately $4.53 million in cost reductions identified above
should be allocated to increase the construction contingency for each individual
project by 2.5 percent, from 5 percent to 7.5 percent. The remainder of the $4.53
million in savings, or the approximate amount of $3.73 million, should be
allocated to a Management Reserve Account to be used for the construction of
additional capital improvement projects to further enhance the Zoo.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
Honorable Tom Ammiano, President
and Members of the Board of Supervisors
January 11, 1999
Page 8
Section 1.4: Facilities Maintenance
• The Zoo is an aging facility (the oldest structures still in use are over 70 years
old) which has experienced many years of unfunded and deferred maintenance.
The problems caused by deferred maintenance have been compounded by aging
facilities, limited funding, and a harsh ocean climate.
• A review of United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) inspection reports
from 1994 to 1999 shows that the Zoo is not adequately responding to violations
that have been identified by the USDA. It is the responsibility of the Zoo to
evaluate all structures and exhibits in the Zoo in light of the nature of the
violations identified in the USDA inspections, make such repairs and
replacements throughout the Zoo, and to establish a schedule of periodic
inspections.
• As of July 7, 1999, the Zoo had a total of 173 maintenance requests pending. The
requests range from minor projects, such as to fix dripping faucets, to major
repair projects in need of outsourcing, such as repairing floors and grading
exhibit areas. The oldest dated request had been submitted in July of 1997 to
replace the public railing in the giraffe exhibit.
• We found that, out of a total of 292 maintenance requests which were submitted
during 1998, 227 or 78 percent were completed as of July 7, 1999 and 65
requests or 22 percent were still pending, six months to one and a half years
after they had been submitted. Of the 65 work orders still pending, 32 were
deemed to be "emergency" or "critical." For example, one such emergency
request which has still not been addressed is to repair an unstable gate and
replace the back perimeter fence in the giraffe exhibit.
• The Zoo will need to continue to enhance its animal care, the quality of its
visitor experience, and address USDA compliance issues while the new Phase II
capital projects are being constructed. It is recommended that Zoo management
increase the maintenance department to address deferred maintenance items
until maintenance is reasonably caught up. In order to accomplish this without
increasing operating costs, new maintenance employees should be assigned
strictly to Phase II program repair items, thereby qualifying all costs for the
force-account labor category (Zoological Society maintenance employees) in the
Phase II program. Zoo management has recently received approval to use such a
force-account labor to perform necessary construction work related to its Phase
II "Repair and Replacement" project.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
Honorable Tom Ammiano, President
and Members of the Board of Supervisors
January 11, 1999
Page 9
Section 1.5: Browse Collection
• Our examination of the Zoo's workers' compensation claim data over the past
four years found that a significant portion of claims were for injuries incurred by
animal keepers while collecting fresh plant and tree cuttings for animal food and
enrichment, known as "browse." From July of 1995 to March of 1999, there were
ten browse related workers' compensation claims at an estimated total cost to
the City's General Fund of $270,389. These injuries resulted in the loss of 477
workdays, representing 14.3 percent of all claims submitted by animal keepers
who are City employees and over 40 percent of the workers' compensation
benefits paid for injuries incurred during that four-year period.
• The San Francisco Zoological Society has taken steps to address the rate of
employee injury such as contracting with Recreation and Park Department for
browse collection and assigning responsibility for a greater portion of the Zoo's
browse collection to professional in-house horticultural staff. These efforts have
recently resulted in a decrease in the number of browse-related injuries to City
and Zoological Society staff. The Zoological Society's long-term plans also include
meeting a portion of the Zoo's browse needs by planting trees and bushes within
the Zoo to be used for browse.
• However, such solutions do not adequately address all of the Zoo's browse
collection issues. The SFZS should establish a browse farm for the Zoo's ongoing
browse needs, which could result in long term cost savings and would provide
other benefits, such as eliminating potential exposure of the animals to toxins
and ensuring an ongoing adequate supply of food and enrichment materials.
• In December of 1999, the Sheriffs Department reported to the Budget Analyst
that it is still willing to consider the establishment of a browse farm at the San
Bruno Jail site. The Zoo Director has advised the Budget Analyst that the Zoo
will contact the Sheriffs Department in the very near future to discuss
establishing a browse farm at the San Bruno Jail site.
Section 1.6: Free Admission Days
• All admissions to the Zoo are free on the first Wednesday of each month. These
free days are the most highly attended of all days at the Zoo, especially during
the summer months. For example, on the free day held in July of 1999, the Zoo
recorded 23,771 visitors, a six-fold increase compared to the total attendance of
3,875 on the following Saturday. On the July of 1999 free day we observed the
animals in the Gorilla World exhibit completely surrounded with jostling adults
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
Honorable Tom Ammiano, President
and Members of the Board of Supervisors
January 11, 1999
Page 10
and children two to three persons deep. Other exhibit areas, such as the Lion
exhibit, were similarly overcrowded. In the Primate Discovery Center Gift Shop,
the two clerks on duty were clearly overwhelmed by the large volume of visitors.
By early afternoon, the trash receptacles near the Terrace Cafe were filled to
overflowing and long lines had formed for the playfield restrooms. We observed
security staff in some areas working to keep order by reminding children to stay
off of railings and not to throw objects into the exhibits.
• The Zoo should consider a modification of its free day policy during the summer
months to minimize stress on the Zoo's animals and facilities. This may become
particularly important while the Zoo undergoes its planned capital
improvements, which may concentrate or increase free day attendance during
these peak summer months beyond the Zoo's capacity.
• One option is for the Zoo to modify its "free day" program by limiting free
admission to only certain hours during peak summer months, as is done by some
other zoos. For example, the Baltimore Zoo has free admission for children only
on the first Saturday of each month between the hours of 10 a.m. and noon and
the Portland Zoo has free admission on the second Tuesday of each month after
5:00 p.m. Another option is to attempt to schedule schools and other organized
groups, including out-of-County groups, in order to avoid overcrowding on any
given day.
Section 2: Visitor Services
As a part of this management audit, we included in our review an assessment of
overall satisfaction of Zoo visitors, admission prices, the quality and pricing of
concessions, and the attractiveness and cleanliness of the grounds and facilities.
• Based on the Zoo's semi-annual visitor surveys, the percentage of Zoo visitors
who rate their overall satisfaction as "excellent" has been slightly below 40
percent or between 40 and 50 percent since August of 1996. Prior to that, from
March of 1994 to February of 1996 visitors reporting an "excellent" rating
averaged around 30 percent. While these ratings have improved, the Zoo has far
to go in providing an "excellent" experience for all of its visitors.
• In the May 1999 Zoo visitor survey, when asked what one thing they would like
to see changed at the Zoo, the most frequently mentioned suggestions (by 29
percent of visitors) concerned providing improved habitats for certain animals or
all of the Zoo's animals in general.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
Honorable Tom Ammiano, President
and Members of the Board of Supervisors
January 11, 1999
Page 11
• An inspection of the Zoo's food services by the City's Department of Public
Health in June of 1999 found numerous minor, but no major, health violations.
However, it was noted that the Zoo's concessions "...are falling into various
stages of decrepitude."
• Although the Zoo has recently made efforts to improve its restroom facilities by
painting stall doors and making other repairs, the poor condition of the
restrooms is in large part due to aging structures and deferred maintenance that
has resulted in unsightly and hazardous conditions.
• Exhibit signage is in poor condition in various areas throughout the Zoo.
Damaged, worn out, dirty, and/or missing signage reinforces to the visitor an
image of a Zoo in a state of disrepair and neglect. -
• Although aged and deteriorating facilities hamper efforts to keep the Zoo
grounds and facilities attractive and clean, the Zoo must allocate greater
resources to managing the attractiveness, cleanliness, and information
(educational and directional signage) aspects of the Zoo. The Zoo should
strengthen the maintenance, horticultural, and custodial staffs, and provide
them with the tools they need to perform efficiently.
Section 3: Objectives, Goals, and Compliance Responsibilities
As part of our performance audit of the San Francisco Zoological Gardens, we
examined the extent to which the Zoological Society is accomplishing the objectives
and goals for which the operation of the San Francisco Zoo was transferred from the
Recreation and Park Department to the Zoological Society. In this section of the
audit we also examined whether the Zoological Society is operating in compliance
with the provisions of the Management Agreement and other relevant regulations.
Section 3.1: Financial and Operational Status; Compliance Issues
• The Zoological Society developed a planning document in July of 1993 entitled
"5-Year Plan: 1993-1998." The 5-Year Plan was approved in concept on July 19,
1993, and, according to Zoo management, was used to guide the Zoo's
development. The 5-Year Plan shows that the Zoological Society intended to
significantly upgrade and improve Zoo facilities and the overall Zoo experience
within the first five years of the Zoological Society's operation, by expending $30
million in funds raised by the Zoological Society on capital improvements and by
instituting managerial and other improvements. A motion to approve a Capital
Budget in the amount of $30 million was passed unanimously by the Board of
Directors of the Zoological Society on February 28, 1994. However, only
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
Honorable Tom Ammiano, President
and Members of the Board of Supervisors
January 11, 1999
Page 12
$10,377,210 of the planned $30 million was expended on capital improvements
($6,803,246 in Founders' Fund monies and $3,573,964 in Capital Campaign
monies). The Zoological Society shifted its capital campaign strategy to
correspond with the City's Zoo Bond program after recognizing that obtaining
significant capital contributions from its donor base was not feasible without the
City's capital funding commitment, given the condition of the Zoo. In the
professional judgment of the Budget Analyst, the Zoological Society's inability to
raise and expend the additional funds on capital projects to upgrade the Zoo and
the two-year delay in Zoo Bond sales due to the 49er Stadium bond lawsuit are
the primary reasons the Zoological Society was unable to achieve its major
operating and financial objectives during the first five years of the Management
Agreement.
• Over the first five years of the Management Agreement, actual operating
revenues, including bequests, were $63,885,195 or $15,633,805 less than the
projected operating revenue estimate of $79,519,000, which was the five-year
operating revenue estimate presented by the Zoological Society when the Zoo
Management Agreement was submitted to the Board of Supervisors for
approval. Thus, the average annual operating revenue shortfall for the five-year
period was $3,126,761 ($15,633,805 divided by 5). Actual operating expenditures
over the five-year period were $65,755,637, or $15,004,259 less than the
projected operating expenditure estimate of $80,759,896. Thus, the average
annual operating expenditure shortfall for the five-year period was $3,000,852
($15,004,259 divided by 5).
• The retail sales contribution to Zoo revenue generation has been particularly
poor. As shown in Table 3.1.3, for the five-year period of FY 1993-94 through FY
1997-98, actual retail sales revenue was $7,567,200 less than projected. Further,
a financial report generated by the Zoological Society titled "Revised Expected
Budget Fiscal Year 1998-99" shows a $537,428 negative variance for "Retail
Operations," which constitutes approximately 81 percent of the entire negative
variance amount of $664,444.
• The Zoological Society has significantly increased its long-term debt to cover
operating deficits and to provide advanced funding for capital projects. Long-
term debt peaked in FY 1996-97 at $2,428,741. As of August 1999, the balance
owed on the Zoo's unsecured revolving line-of-credit was $1,194,350.
• The revenue shortfalls experienced by the Zoological Society have had a very
negative effect on Zoo staff. Many questions to Zoo staff concerning an
operational issue have been answered with "that's not in the budget" or with "we
don't have funding for that." As Dr. Parrott states in his evaluation beginning at
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
Honorable Tom Ammiano, President
and Members of the Board of Supervisors
January 11, 1999
Page 13
the bottom of page 34 of this audit report, "The revenue urgency and sense of
vulnerability permeates the organization."
• Zoological Society staff did not obtain required building and other permits for
numerous capital projects and alterations at the Zoo. Thus, required plan checks
and inspections were not accomplished and the Zoological Society did not pay
required fees to the City. Accordingly, the City Attorney advises that the City
could be held liable for injuries resulting from structural inadequacies as a
direct result of required plan checks and inspections not having been performed.
• Our review of the "5-Year Plan: 1993-1998" revealed that the Zoological Society
has accomplished many of that document's objectives and goals. However, in
addition to effectively managing Phase II of the Master Plan, other objectives
are important to the Zoo's success, such as improving internal communications.
• The Zoo has maintained its accreditation with the AZA and its license with the
USDA. However, Zoo management has not appropriately addressed the findings
resulting from USDA inspections, as covered in Section 1.1 of this audit report.
• For FY 1998-99, the Zoological Society did not transmit its audited financial
statements to the Recreation and Park Department within 120 days of the end of
the Society's fiscal year (June 30th of each year), as required by Section 15.10 of
the Management Agreement.
Section 3.2: Payment and Invoicing Procedures for City Services
Provided to the Zoo
• Section 6.1 of the Management Agreement requires that the Zoological Society
pay to the City the cost of all services provided by the City to the Zoological
Society within 30 days of receipt of a written invoice. However, the Zoological
Society was late in paying the majority of Recreation and Park Department
invoices on time for City services provided to the Zoo. Of a total of 169 invoices
issued from October 1993 to April 1999, 137 or 81% were paid late. The
payments sampled were late an average of 34 days ranging from 1 day to 111
days overdue. The cost to the City, in terms of lost income from interest yields
the City would have otherwise earned from invested funds, was $80,262 over the
course of five years.
• Independent of and in addition to the late payments caused by the Zoological
Society, the Recreation and Park Department failed to invoice the Zoological
Society in a timely manner after services were rendered to the Zoo. The longest
delays in issuing invoices involved sewer service and water charges,
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
Honorable Tom Ammiano, President
and Members of the Board of Supervisors
January 11, 1999
Page 14
maintenance services, and light, heat and power charges. For example, sewer
service charge invoices sampled were delayed an estimated average of 284 days
ranging from 122 to 726 days late. The delays experienced from October 1993
through December 1998 resulted in a loss of income from interest yields in the
estimated amount of $149,724 over the course of five years.
• The present system of appropriating funds to cover Zoo sewer service and Zoo
light, heat, and power expenses in the annual Recreation and Park Budget and
then having the Department bill the Zoo to reimburse the City for those
expenditures is cumbersome and not cost effective. It has contributed
significantly to costly delays in processing invoices and payments.
• Accordingly, at the suggestion of the Budget Analyst, the Public Utilities
Commission (PUC) has agreed to have its Clean Water Department and Bureau
of Light, Heat, and Power bill the Zoological Society directly instead of billing
the Recreation and Park Department for PUC services at the Zoo. The Zoo
Society has expressed its agreement to the change to direct billing.
• Implementation of our recommendations should result in avoiding the loss of
interest income to the City in an estimated amount of $50,000 per year.
Section 3.3: Compliance With Insurance Requirements
• Section 17.1 of the Management Agreement requires that, subject to the
approval of the City Risk Manager as to the insurers and policy forms, the
Zoological Society shall place and maintain throughout the term of the
Agreement, and pay the cost thereof, various types of insurance coverages. The
Management Agreement also provides for periodic reviews of the Zoological
Society's insurance coverages, but does not specify a time period for such review.
• Prior to this performance audit, the Zoological Society did not obtain the City
Risk Manager's approval of the insurers, policy forms, and insurance coverages
procured, as required by the Management Agreement, and the coverages were
never reviewed by the City Risk Manager.
• The City Risk Manager has recently reviewed the insurance coverages and has
determined that the provision limiting the policy forms and amount of both
Malpractice and Commercial Crime Insurance to those in effect on the
commencement date of the Management Agreement is ambiguous.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
Honorable Tom Ammiano, President
and Members of the Board of Supervisors
January 11, 1999
Page 15
• The Zoological Society maintains Property Insurance on City-owned Zoo
buildings, even though such coverage is not currently required by the
Agreement. The City Risk Manager believes that Property Insurance coverage is
essential. Because the Recreation and Park Department does not insure its real
property, the City Risk Manager recommends that the Zoological Society
continue to provide such coverage without interruption, for the duration of the
Management Agreement.
Section 3.4: Recreation and Park Commission Representation at Joint
Zoo Committee Meetings
• Section 16.3 of the Management Agreement specifies that the "Joint Zoo
Committee," which was established in 1982 prior to the Management Agreement
and which consists of three members of the Recreation and Park Commission
and three members of the Zoological Society's Board of Directors, shall be
maintained throughout the term of the Agreement and shall hold public
meetings at least 11 times per calendar year to discuss and hear public
testimony regarding major policies affecting the Zoo, including without
limitation the setting of fees, new animal exhibits, animal acquisition and
disposition policies, land use, and capital and operating budgets.
• Although the Joint Zoo Committee is an advisory committee without any
legislative authority, the Budget Analyst considers that a balanced
representation between Recreation and Park Commissioners and Zoological
Society Board Directors at Joint Zoo Committee meetings is required for
effective public/private management of the Zoo. Virtually, all major operational
and financial matters and proposals are submitted to the Joint Zoo Committee
for recommendation and referral to the full Recreation and Park Commission.
• Analysis of the minutes of the Joint Zoo Committee meetings for calendar years
1997 and 1998 revealed a wide disparity between the attendance by members of
the Recreation and Park Commission and attendance by members of the Board
of Directors of the Zoological Society. For the 22 meetings reviewed, the
Recreation and Park Commission was fully represented by three Commissioners
only 13.6 percent of the time whereas the Zoological Society was fully
represented by three Directors 95.5 percent of the time. Further, nine of the 22
meetings reviewed included an agenda item that covered budget issues. The
Recreation and Park Commission had full representation by three
Commissioners at only two of the nine meetings, whereas the Zoological Society
had full representation by three Directors at each of the nine meetings.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
Honorable Tom Ammiano, President
and Members of the Board of Supervisors
January 11, 1999
Page 16
Inadequate attendance by Recreation and Park Commissioners does not, in the
judgment of the Budget Analyst, provide for effective public/private management
of the Zoo.
Section 4: Financial Management
Section 4 examines and evaluates revenue development and financial
administration, and includes sections on Fundraising and Development, Marketing
and Public Relations, Cash Handling, and Purchasing. Zoo attendance is obviously
a significant factor in the generation of revenue supporting the Zoo's operating
budgets.
Section 4.1: Fundraising & Development
• From FY 1993-94 through FY 1998-99, the Zoological Society raised a total of
approximately $47.5 million in contributions, membership dues, fund raising,
and bequests for operations and capital projects. However, there is potential for
improvement in certain areas. For example, there is potential to improve the
Zoological Society's performance in recruiting and retaining Zoological Society
members. Also, costs for certain fundraising activities are excessive.
• The Zoological Society should implement cost reduction measures, including
eliminating one Events staff position and the Associate Membership Director
position, and continue to evaluate the profitability of certain events in order to
determine whether there is potential to reduce costs or increase revenues, or
whether certain events should be discontinued.
• The implementation of our recommendations would result in savings of
approximately $108,391 annually and would improve the profitability and
performance of the Zoological Society's Development programs.
Section 4.2: Marketing & Public Relations
• The Zoological Society spent over $4.2 million on marketing over the past six
years, and its marketing budget increased by 136 percent (27 percent annually)
between FY 1993-94 and FY 1998-99.
• Yet, during the same time period, attendance increased by only 19 percent (3.8
percent annually). In addition, in two years when marketing expenditures
increased, attendance decreased, and in another year when marketing
expenditures declined, attendance increased.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
Honorable Tom Ammiano, President
and Members of the Board of Supervisors
January 11, 1999
Page 17
• Moreover, in the late 1980s, when the Zoo did not have a marketing budget,
there were some years in which attendance exceeded 1,000,000 visitors versus
the actual attendance of 842,958 visitors for FY 1998-99.
• Since large marketing expenditures do not necessarily result in increased
attendance, the Zoological Society should limit its marketing budget to 5.0
percent of annual operating expenses, thereby saving expenditures of $89,466.
• The Zoological Society should ensure that the corporate sponsorship program is
consistent with its mission of conservation, education, and recreation. Zoo
management has advised the Budget Analyst that each corporate sponsorship
program is reviewed to insure its compatibility with the Zoo's mission.
Section 4.3: Cash Handling
• The Budget Analyst audited the procedures employed by the Zoo to ensure the
security of cash and cash handlers. In general, we found that those procedures
need to be significantly improved. We have provided Zoo management with our
recommendations concerning safety and security of cash handling operations on
a confidential basis in order to prevent sensitive information from being made
public. Zoo management has provided the Budget Analyst with a set of actions
that have been and will be taken to enhance the security of cash handling
operations.
• The Budget Analyst conducted audit tests to evaluate the following cash
handling operations for September 1998:
Reconciled cash receipts to bank deposits, computer summaries of cash
received, and bank deposit statements;
Reconciled Daily Sales Summaries to the General Ledger and to the Zoo's
financial statements;
Traced the opening statement balance to the ending balance on the prior
checking account reconciliation. Traced deposits in transit on prior
reconciliations to deposits on the current statement.
Although no irregularities were noted as a result of the foregoing audit tests, we
noted the following deficiencies:
• The Zoo's Cash Handling Manual defines a cash overage or underage as 1) a
deviation of more than $5 from the amount of sales recorded on the cash
register, or 2) a one percent deviation from the amount of sales recorded on the
cash register. Our review of cash handling revealed that for the month audited,
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
Honorable Tom Ammiano, President
and Members of the Board of Supervisors
January 11, 1999
Page 18
81 of 577 cash register tallies, or approximately 14 percent, resulted in cash
overages or underages. Further, only 46 percent of the underages and overages
resulted in issuance to Cash Handlers of a Cash Handling Notification form,
although procedures provide that every cash overage or underage should result
in a Cash Handling Notification form.
• The Zoo Cash Handling Manual that we originally audited was not current and
consistent, nor was there a control in place to ensure that each Cash Handler
received a Cash Handling Manual. During the course of this performance audit,
Zoo management developed a new Cash Handling Manual that meets auditing
standards and has instituted controls to ensure that the Cash Handling Manual
is issued to all Cash Handlers.
Section 4.4: Purchasing
• The Zoo has a rudimentary purchasing system, with the only significant control
being payment for goods and services. Functional managers, such as the
Commissary Manager (Animal Food), the Merchandise Sales Manager, and the
Food Services Manager all order, receive, and authorize payment for goods from
various vendors of their selection, primarily without contracts. This is a
fundamental violation of the "separation of duties" internal control principle.
• The primary control over the purchasing system, authorization for payment, is
exercised by the Finance Director, who until very recently also had primary staff
responsibility for the purchasing function. This also is a fundamental violation of
the "separation of duties" internal control principle.
• The Zoo does not have a purchasing policy and procedures manual that provides
rules and guidance on economic quantity ordering, documentation requirements,
inventory requirements, internal control requirements, and which also includes
a purchasing "code of ethics."
• In order to determine whether there are opportunities for price savings in Zoo
purchasing, we asked the City's Purchasing Department to review a sample of
the prices paid by the Zoo for a variety of food items. That review revealed that
in some cases the City is obtaining better prices than the Zoo, and vice versa.
For example, for a 20-pound case of Grade A mixed vegetables the City pays
$15.88, but the Zoological Society pays $21.80.
• According to the Zoo's new Deputy Director, who has recently assumed
responsibility for the management of purchasing, the Zoo will transition to a
formal purchasing system, with centralized ordering, commencing upon
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
Honorable Tom Ammiano, President
and Members of the Board of Supervisors
January 11, 1999
Page 19
completion of the new Zoo warehouse, which is scheduled for completion in late
2000.
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Section 1: Animal Management & Care
The Zoological Society should:
1.1.1 Acquire an elephant restraint chute as soon as possible, which can be
relocated into the new exhibit when that is completed. This will address a
current limitation of the existing facilities for African elephant management.
1.1.2 Allocate more of the Maintenance Department's time for general facility
maintenance, rather than assignments to new exhibit construction projects.
1.1.3 Develop a better working relationship with the USDA-APHIS. Zoo staff
should promptly address non-compliant items and negotiate for the best
possible reasonable length of time for compliance. Zoo staff should not
challenge minor findings, and reserve appeals for the rare major non-
compliant items that may, in fact, not threaten an animal's welfare and may
not fairly qualify as non-compliant.
1.1.4 Ensure that the entire Zoo management participates in regular leadership
training, to cultivate skills necessary to continue to improve staff morale.
1.1.5 Continue development of strategic planning, definition of the organization's
values, and the conflict resolution process.
1.1.6 Recognize that the weather at the San Francisco Zoo is at the cooler limit for
keeping many tropical species, without resorting to indoor temperature-
controlled exhibits. New outdoor exhibits should be designed with ample
windbreaks, outdoor shelters, and on-exhibit heat sources. The animal
collection should be carefully selected, as much as possible, for an animal's
ability to acclimate to cooler temperatures, or select species that originate
from cooler climate zones, such as tropical zones at elevation or northern
climate zones.
1.1.7 Ensure that enrichment items are regularly added and changed within the
bison exhibit.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
Honorable Tom Ammiano, President
and Members of the Board of Supervisors
January 11, 1999
Page 20
1.1.8 Decide within a short time period whether sea lions and northern bears
(Polar bears and the Kodiak bear) will be part of the Master Plan. If the seals
and northern bears are not part of the long-term plan for the Zoo, the
animals should be relocated to other institutions with better facilities. The
bear grottos should then be removed. If the animals are part of the Master
Plan, the existing facilities should be removed and new state-of-the-art bear
or sea lion exhibits constructed within the time period of Phase II. Ten to
fifteen years is too long to address these concerns.
1.1.9 Ensure that its Exhibits Committee, on a priority basis, review plans for
single specimens currently in the Zoo's animal collection.
1.1.10 Carefully consider each of the ideas presented by Animal Keepers in the
"Animal Keeper Perspectives" section of this audit report and implement
those ideas, were warranted.
1.1.11 Ensure that all Animal Keepers who have not received a performance
evaluation within the past year be provided a performance evaluation as soon
as practicable and annually thereafter.
The Department of Recreation and Park should:
1.1.12 Allocate greater resources to the bison facility. The site itself actually has
exceptional potential, with the cooler climate and large open setting.
1.1.13 Implement the Bison Exhibit minor maintenance and long-term modification
improvements contained in Attachment II to this report section.
Section 1.2: Animal Acquisitions and Dispositions
The Zoological Society should:
1.2.1 Require all institutions requesting an animal from the San Francisco Zoo to
complete an animal acquisition application form.
1.2.2 Amend the "Animal Disposition Agreement" to require that all recipients of
Zoo animals notify the Zoo upon the death of an animal and to require that
non-AZA recipients obtain the Zoo's approval prior to dispositioning the
animal to a subsequent recipient.
1.2.3 Increase the number of mammals and birds in the Zoo's animal collection,
commensurate with providing animal care that meets or exceeds AZA
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
Honorable Tom Ammiano, President
and Members of the Board of Supervisors
January 11, 1999
Page 21
standards. Zoo management reports that the Zoo intends to increase its
animal collection as facilities are rebuilt and added during implementation of
Phase II of the Master Plan.
Section 1.3: Capital Projects
The Zoological Society should:
1.3.1 Implement changes to the, Warehouse, Quarantine, and Holding facility
construction plans thereby producing cost savings of $687,000.
1.3.2 Reduce "soft costs" for program management and Zoological Society
administration from 8.8 percent of construction costs to five percent of
construction costs, thereby saving approximately $1.82 million.
1.3.3 Reduce DPW construction management costs from 7.8 percent of construction
costs to five percent of construction costs, thereby saving approximately $1.34
million.
1.3.4 Reduce design fee costs from 13 percent of construction costs to 12 percent of
construction costs, thereby saving approximately $480,000.
1.3.5 Negotiate with the Art Commission to reduce Public Art Program fees from
two percent to 1.5 percent, thereby saving $200,000.
1.3.6 Allocate $800,000 of the approximately $4.53 million in cost reductions
identified above to increase the construction contingency for each individual
project by 2.5 percent, or from five percent to 7.5 percent.
1.3.7 Allocate the remaining $3.73 million in cost reductions to the Management
Reserve Account for further allocation to Phase II construction projects.
1.3.8 Develop a separate cost factor for market conditions and update it over the
duration of the program.
1.3.9 Identify and separate as a new line item in the Phase II Program the wasted
expenditures for re-starting the Program. Although these wasted
expenditures are components of the Program's overall cost, they should not
be included when evaluating the reasonableness of soft costs for
implementing the projects.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
Honorable Tom Ammiano, President
and Members of the Board of Supervisors
January 11, 1999
Page 22
1.3.10 Appoint an in-house Program Administrator with construction management
expertise to oversee the work of the consultants. The function could possibly
be adequately performed on a part-time basis.
Section 1.4: Facilities Maintenance
1.4.1 Develop a maintenance quality control program to insure that significant
maintenance items are identified prior to USDA inspections.
1.4.2 Improve its maintenance work order log system by recording the date work
orders were completed in order to provide Zoo management with improved
record keeping and controls over the timeliness of repairs.
1.4.3 Increase the maintenance department staff to address deferred maintenance
items until maintenance is reasonably caught up. In order to accomplish this
without increasing operating costs, new maintenance employees should be
assigned strictly to the Phase II program approved repair items, thereby
qualifying all costs for the force-account labor category in the Phase II
program.
Section 1.5: Browse Collection
1.5.1 Include an on-site or off-site dedicated browse farm in its new Zoo planning
and establish such a farm as soon as possible.
Section 1.6: Free Admission Days
1.6.1 Modify its free entry policy during summer months to reduce stress on the
Zoo's animals, staff, and facilities, particularly as the Zoo undergoes its
planned capital improvements.
Section 2: Visitor Services
2.1 Consider the use of on-call custodians or maintainors who could fill in for
personnel on vacation or leave. As resources become available, purchase labor
saving equipment to facilitate cleaning tasks.
2.2 Ensure that restrooms are thoroughly cleaned either after closing hours or
before opening, in addition to the daily servicing of restrooms. Sign-in sheets
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
Honorable Tom Ammiano, President
and Members of the Board of Supervisors
January 11, 1999
Page 23
posted on the walls would assure the public that restrooms have been
serviced as well as aid the custodial supervisor.
2.3 Review the detailed housekeeping report prepared by the custodial experts,
which has been provided to the Zoo, and implement the recommendations
contained in that report as resources become available.
2.4 Implement the following recommendations concerning signage in the Zoo:
■ Assign responsibility for inventory, minor repairs, and cleaning of signs to
one department, preferably to one or two persons who would then develop
knowledge of the cleaning and maintenance requirements for each type of
sign.
■ Establish a regular inspection and replacement schedule for all signs and
replace signs that are currently of poor quality or damaged as soon as
possible. In addition, consider the costs and benefits of obtaining higher
quality signage which is more durable and may result in lowered long term
costs in addition to enhancing visitor enjoyment and projecting a more
positive image of the Zoo.
■ Install temporary signs in empty exhibit areas that inform visitors that
exhibits are "under construction" or with another appropriate explanation.
■ Install "STOP" signs or similar highly visible and easy to understand signs
at the pathway entrances to employee only areas in order to prevent
visitors from mistakenly entering off limits areas in the Zoo which is
disruptive to Zoo staff and potentially hazardous to visitors.
■ Ensure that the text on the "For Your Information" signs is up to date and
that the text is legible.
Section 3.1: Financial and Operational Status; Compliance Issues
The Zoological Society should:
3.1.1 Thoroughly clean up the Zoo and keep it that way.
3.1.2 Construct high quality signage.
3.1.3 Increase the number of mammals and birds in the Zoo collection
commensurate with being able to care properly for the animals.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
Honorable Tom Ammiano, President
and Members of the Board of Supervisors
January 11, 1999
Page 24
3.1.4 Beautify empty exhibits with conservation projects, landscaping, or anything
else that is attractive and fits the motif of a Zoo whose primary concerns are
conservation, educatior, and quality animal care.
3.1.5 Set goals for the Zoo that all of its employees can relate to and feel a part of.
3.1.6 Increase efficiencies by controlling expenses, including using the type of
expense schedule shown in Exhibit 3.1.8.
3.1.7 Continue working with the Department of Building Inspection to obtain
permits on all facilities maintenance projects and capital projects that
require permits but that were not obtained prior to performing the work.
3.1.8 Emphasize to the Zoo staff that City, state, and federal rules and regulations
are to be followed, especially with regard to obtaining building permits.
3.1.9 Emphasize to the Zoo staff that USDA inspections are to be responded to in
an appropriate manner.
3.1.10 Enhance efforts to achieve the objectives and goals set in the 1993 planning
document that have not yet been accomplished.
3.1.11 In accordance with Section 15.10 of the Management Agreement, deliver to
the Recreation and Park Commission for its acceptance an original, signed
copy of the Zoological Society's audited annual financial statements by the
earlier of 30 days after the completion of the audit or 120 days after the end
of the fiscal year covered by the audit.
3.1.12 Adopt a more "open door" policy to public inquiries and requests for
information.
Section 3.2: Payment and Invoicing Procedures for City Services Provided
to the Zoo
The Zoological Society and Recreation and Park Department should:
3.2.1 Arrange for the Zoo to be directly billed for sewer service and light, heat and
power costs by the Clean Water Department and Buraau of Light, Heat and
Power, respectively. This should expedite timely payment by the Zoological
Society and free Recreation and Park staff to devote more labor-intensive
time to billing and collection procedures for maintenance and payroll costs.
The Recreation and Park Commission budget should be adjusted accordingly.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
Honorable Tom Ammiano, President
and Members of the Board of Supervisors
January 11, 1999
Page 25
3.2.2 Set up and maintain a date stamping procedure to better manage, control,
and expedite payments by the Society and facilitate timely invoicing by the
Department.
Section 3.3: Compliance With Insurance Requirements
The Zoological Society should:
3.3.1 Increase the Malpractice Liability Coverage for the Assistant Veterinarian to
the same level as that for Chief Veterinarian. The increased cost of $26 in the
annual premium is minimal compared to the increase in the amount of
coverage.
The Recreation and Park Department and the Zoological Society should:
3.3.2 Develop a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to clarify specific amounts
of coverage and minimum limits for both Malpractice Liability Insurance and
Commercial Crime Insurance.
3.3.3 Develop an MOU providing that the Zoological Society maintain Property
Insurance of City-owned buildings for the duration of the Management
Agreement
3.3.4 Develop an MOU to provide that insurance coverage reviews occur every two
years, or sooner if warranted by a substantial change in circumstances.
Section 3.4: Recreation and Park Commission Representation at Joint
Zoo Committee Meetings
We recommend that the Recreation and Park Commission:
3.4.1 Ensure to the extent possible that three members of the Recreation and Park
Commission attend each meeting of the Joint Zoo Committee.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
Honorable Tom Ammiano, President
and Members of the Board of Supervisors
January 11, 1999
Page 26
Section 4.1: Fundraising & Development
The Zoological Society should:
4.1.1 Implement measures to improve and evaluate member recruitment and
retention.
4.1.2 Implement cost reduction measures in the Fundraising, Membership and
Events Programs as recommended in this section.
4.1.3 Continue to evaluate the profitability of certain events to determine whether
they should be discontinued, or if there is any potential to reduce costs or
increase revenues for these events. Zoo management has advised the Budget
Analyst that all events are periodically reviewed in order to evaluated their
profitability.
Section 4.2: Marketing & Public Relations
The Zoological Society should:
4.2.1 Limit marketing expenditures to no more than 5.0 percent of its annual
operating budget.
4.2.2 Implement cost-cutting measures in its Marketing Department in accordance
with the guidelines in this report.
4.2.3 Ensure that the corporate sponsorship program is consistent with the Zoo
Society's mission.
Section 4.3: Cash Handling
The Zoological Society should:
4.3.1 Update the Cash Handling Manual to incorporate needed improvements cited
in this audit report section.
4.3.2 Hold a workshop on cash handling, issue each employee involved in cash
handling a Cash Handling Manual, and institute procedures that each new
employee is issued a manual and has the opportunity to learn correct cash
handling procedures.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
Honorable Tom Ammiano, President
and Members of the Board of Supervisors
January 11, 1999
Page 27
4.3.3 Following the Cash Handling workshop previously recommended, institute
the control of informing Zoo visitors that if a Cash Handler does not provide
the visitor with a receipt at the time of purchase, the visitor will be given a
free product.
4.3.4 Follow the cash handling procedures requiring that a Cash Handling
Notification be issued to Cash Handlers for each cash variance, or that
notation be made to the cash handling file explaining that the cash variance
was due to an equipment problem or other extenuating circumstance.
4.3.5 The Zoological Society's financial auditors should review the implementation
of increased cash handling safety and security as part of their audit of
internal controls.
Section 4.4: Purchasing
The Zoological Society should:
4.4.1 Establish a formal purchasing system with written procedures and with a
Zoo employee responsible for placing purchase orders based on valid purchase
requisitions and economic order quantities for common items.
4.4.2 Review major recurring supply requirements and establish contracts with
vendors, where such contracts would be beneficial to the Zoo.
4.4.3 Review prices paid by the City and by another zoo for items used by the San
Francisco Zoo in order to obtain the best value available.
It should be noted that the Zoological Society has recognized many of its challenges
and has instituted various new programs and procedures as a result of this
management audit.
The Zoo Director and his staff have had the opportunity to review and comment on
this report. In addition, the Acting General Manager of the Recreation and Park
Department has reviewed those sections that pertain to the Recreation and Park
Department. The responses of the Zoological Society and the Recreation and Park
Department are attached to our report beginning on page 206.
The Zoological Society's written response to the audit report characterizes the audit
as presenting "three major themes" that reflect favorably on the Zoo's overall
performance. This statement is a vast oversimplification. The audit report presents
15 specific findings and 75 recommendations that are thoroughly documented and
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
Honorable Tom Ammiano, President
and Members of the Board of Supervisors
January 11, 1999
Page 28
have been reviewed at length and in great detail by all parties concerned. Despite
this lengthy, detailed review, the Zoological Society has not provided the Board of
Supervisors with specific responses to the Budget Analyst's findings and
recommendations.
The Zoological Society's response states that the Zoo "..question some analyses and
recommendations" presented in our report, without stating specifically what
questions remain after our detailed review of findings and recommendations. The
Budget Analyst has addressed all questions presented to us by the Zoological
Society with specific facts, documentation and work papers.
Despite our concerns over the lack of a specific response to our findings and
recommendations, the Budget Analyst would like to acknowledge and thank the
management and staff of the Zoological Society for their cooperation during the
course of this performance audit.
Respectfully Submitted,
'Harvey M. Rose
Budget Analyst
cc :
Supervisor Becerril
Supervisor Brown
Supervisor Bierman
Supervisor Katz
Supervisor Kaufman
Supervisor Leno
Supervisor Newsom
Supervisor Teng
Supervisor Yaki
Supervisor Yee
Clerk of the Board
Mayor Brown
Paul J. Jansen,
Chairman and Members
of the Board of Directors, San Francisco
Zoological Society
David Anderson, Zoo Director
Controller
Legislative Analyst
Matthew Hymel
Stephen Kawa
Ted Lakey
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
Table of Contents
Introduction i
Zoological Society Accomplishments vi
Section 1 - Animal Management and Care
1.1 — Animal Management and Care - General 1
1.1a - Dr. Parrott's Animal Management and Care Evaluation 25
1.2 — Acquisition and Disposition of Animals 40
1.3 — Capital Projects 51
1.4 - Facilities Maintenance 68
1.5 — Browse Collection 76
1.6 — Free Admission Days 85
Section 2 — Visitor Services 90
Section 3 — Objectives, Performance, and Compliance Issues
3.1 - Financial and Operational Status; Compliance Issues 102
3.2 -Payment and Invoicing Procedures for City Services Provided
to the Zoo 123
3.3 — Compliance with Insurance Requirements 129
3.4 — Recreation and Park Commission Representation at
Joint Zoo Committee Meetings 135
Section 4 - Financial Management
4.1 — Fundraising and Development 141
4.2 - Marketing 153
4.3 - Cash Handling 167
4.4 - Purchasing 174
Appendix: Section 3.1 Exhibits 179
Written Response from the San Francisco Zoo 206
Written Response from the Recreation and Park Department 210
Office of the Budget Analyst
Performance Audit of the San Francisco Zoo
Introduction
The Budget Analyst of the City and County of San Francisco has performed this
Performance Audit of the San Francisco Zoo (the "Zoo") pursuant to direction
received from the Board of Supervisors under the authority granted by Charter
Section 2.114.
Project Scope
The scope of this performance audit included a comprehensive audit survey and
selection of specific subject areas for detailed examination and analysis. The specific
areas addressed in the performance audit are shown in the Table of Contents.
Section 1.1 of the report, "Animal Management and Care," is the most detailed,
accounting for a little less than one-fifth of the entire report. Section 1.1 also
includes an examination and evaluation of the animal care afforded the bison
located in Golden Gate Park in a facility under the control of the Recreation and
Park Department.
Methodology
This Performance Audit of the Zoo was performed in accordance with standards
developed by the United States General Accounting Office, as published in
Government Auditing Standards, 1994 Revision by the Comptroller General of the
United States. Accordingly, this performance audit included the following basic
elements in its planning and implementation:
Entrance Conference: An entrance conference was conducted with the Zoo Director
and management staff to discuss the performance audit scope, procedures, and
protocol.
Pre-Audit Survey: A pre-audit survey was conducted to familiarize the performance
audit staff with the operations of the Zoo, interview upper management, and collect
basic documentation regarding Zoo operations. As a result of the work completed as
part of this pre-audit survey, areas of Zoo operations requiring additional review
and analysis were identified.
Field Work: Field work was conducted in the specific areas that we determined
would be included in this study. Middle managers, supervisors, and line personnel
were interviewed to obtain details regarding Zoo operations. In order to complete
the analysis contained in this report, we conduct2d a survey of Animal Keepers and
we also conducted extensive reviews of Zoo records.
7.
Office of the Budget Analyst
Introduction
Analysis and Preparation of Draft Report: At the conclusion of the field work phase
of this study, we conducted detailed analyses of the information collected. Based on
these analyses, we prepared our findings, conclusions, recommendations, and
estimates of costs and benefits from implementation of our recommendations. We
reviewed the findings, conclusions, and recommendations with each manager
directly responsible for the audited area. The analyses were incorporated into a
draft performance audit report, which was then provided to the Zoo for review.
Exit Conference and Preparation of the Final Report: We held an exit conference
with the Zoo Director and the upper management of the Zoo to review the details of
the report, and to identify any areas of the report requiring clarification or
correction. Based on this exit conference, and further discussions, we considered the
comments and clarifications provided by Zoo management and this final report was
prepared and issued to the Board of Supervisors.
Current Organization, Budget and Staffing of the Zoo
The primary operating divisions of the Zoo are:
> The Animal Management Division - including three Animal Sections:
Primates/Carnivores, Hoofstock/Pachyderms, and Birds; Special
Collections (including the Children's Zoo, the Insect Zoo, and the Animal
Resource Center); the Staff Veterinarian; the Curator of Collections
(including the Animal Commissary); the Maintenance Division; and the
Conservation and Science Section.
> Visitor Services (including Merchandise, Food Service, Rides and
Admissions, and Operations)
> The Education Division
Other operating and support functions include the following:
> The Finance Division
> Human Resources
> Development and Marketing (including Membership, Events, Gifts and
Contributions, and Public Relations
> Capital Projects (including the Curator of Planning, Facilities
Maintenance, and the Horticulture Section)
The Zoo's organizational chart is shown on the following page.
u
Office of the Budget Analyst
SI
z
<
g
a.
to
*s
to
o
E
LU
£
cr
O
LU
o
to
I-
<
TE
<
X
cn
cn
CL
o
X
_l
cn
00
<
ber
LU
o
LEAD
IZATI
ptem
O
z
<r
CO
O
N
RG,
SF
O
TEE
>-
E
LU
£
<_)
O
o
(_>
to
LU
_l
:>
ICA
UTI
to
o
LU
_J
X
o
LU
o
M
to
ISCO
CTOR
o
LU
ce
RA
Q
u_
LU
Z
O
<
Q
to
cr
<
o
m
9= ■§
a _
>- _H
unkei
ppes
cn
_cz
ra
ong
o
Jovsk
Q
o
LU
■o
X
LU
CO
_i
cc
an
<D
CD
ke
cd
CD
.:>
<D
reel
Rog
O
— J
Wa
LU
iche
LU
2
LU
E o3
o- z
O o
-J 3 o
LU < 5-
> 2: p
<
CJ
O _J
Q* <
° £
O <
LU O
Cg
Q
C
ro
0)
z
75
LU
E
ie
E
Q_
CO
CD
O
to
_l
CD
cn
LU
oral
>
LU
O
Q.
O
O
O
Maj
_ cr
S o
to —
o: .a
O-
z
O.
CD
CD
rr
<
CD
c
•O
E
_c:
'5
<
_J
75
LC
ton
<
f=
0
CO
to
Q.
0
<
O
Am
CO
ON
■O
'CD
z
<
O
CO
KET
RE
d>
0
<
1
cz
E
m
0
CD
Z3
D.
CO
CO
0
cn
0
CD
Q_
0
CD
CO
CO
iii
Introduction
The Zoo's budgeted operating revenues for Fiscal Year 1999-2000 are $15,316,226,
from the following sources:
Percentage
Description
Amount
Of Total
Contributions
$1,200,000
7.83
Board Giving
400,000
2.61
Fundraising
691,885
4.52
Membership
1,579,200
19.31
Estate Bequests
300,000
1.96
Education Income
165,207
1.08
Retail Operations
3,709,210
24.22
Children's Zoo
72,500
0.47
Interest
y /,oou
U.b4
Miscellaneous Income
297,000
1.94
Gate Admissions
2,697,400
17.15
Management Fee
4,000,500
26.12
Lorikeet Exhibit Revenue
175.974
1.15
Total Support and Revenue
$15,316,226
100.00
The Zoo's budgeted operating expenses for Program Services and for Support
Services are $15,316,226, as follows:
Percentage
Program Services
Amount
of Total
Retail Operations
$2,969,578
19.39
Membership Services
719,566
4.70
Animal Department
4,374,383
28.56
Lorikeet Costs
228,382
1.49
Admissions
293.435
1.92
Total Program Expenses
$8,585,344
56.05
Support Services
Fund Raising
535,848
3.50
Marketing
958,002
6.25
Education
681,806
4.45
General & Administration
1,417,150
9.25
Building & Grounds
2,966,254
19.37
Interest Expense
157.580
1.03
Total Support Services
6,716,640
43.85
Total Expenses
S15.301.984
99.91
Operating Surplus
$14,242
0.09
Total Expenses and Operating Surplus
$15,316,226
100.00
IV
Office of the Budget Analyst
Introduction
Zoo employees totaled 297 as of August 11, 1999, including 136 regular, full-time
positions and 161 other position categories (regular, part-time; temporary, intern,
Summer season, or as-needed), distributed among the Zoo organization elements in
accordance with the following table.
Regular, Other
Full-time Percentage Categories Percentage Total Percentage
Administration
18
13.2
4
2.5
22
7.4
Animal Management
54
39.7
45
27.9
99
33.3
DevelopmentMarketing
11
8.1
5
3.1
16
5.4
Operations
23
16.9
4
2.5
27
9.1
Visitor Services
28
20.6
103
64.0
131
44.1
Zoo Director
2
1.5
0.0
0.0
2
0.7
Total
136
100.0
161
100.0
297
100.0
Based on the Zoo's animal collection database, as of October 15, 1999, the animal
collection consisted of the following number of species and specimens within each
class of animals shown below:
Mammals Birds Reptiles Amphibians Fishes
89/305 76/351 27/54 7/19 8/132
Phase II of the Zoo's Master Plan
Under the terms of the Lease Agreement between the City and the Zoological
Society, the Zoological Society is required to meet two goals with respect to
fundraising for the Zoo's capital projects in order to implement the first two phases
of the Master Plan. The first is to raise $10 million from private donations for a
"Founder's Fund" within the first five years of the Agreement. The $10 million was
to be allocated as follows: (a) $5 million for capital improvements (separate from the
Phase II total sum of $73 million); (b) $2 million for operating expenses; and (c) $3
million for the Zoological Society's Endowment Fund. By June 30, 1996, the
Zoological Society met this goal by raising approximately $11.5 million toward the
Founder's Fund, of which $6.8 million has been expended for capital improvements.
These funds were allocated for improvements and new exhibits under Phase I of the
Zoo's revised Master Plan.
A revised Master Plan for the Zoo was completed in 1994. The plan describes a four-
phase program to modernize the Zoo. It calls for a Zoo which is divided into
geographic regions according to the part of the world that the animals come from
and which contains natural habitats that allow the animals to roam undisturbed.
v
Office of the Budget Analyst
Introduction
The second requirement under the Lease Agreement is for the Zoological Society to
raise $25 million in private donations for Phase II of the Zoo's Master Plan. The $25
million is to accompany the $48 million in proceeds from a 1997 Zoo General
Obligation Bond measure, for a total of $73 million to be used for Phase II capital
improvements at the Zoo. As of December of 1999, the Zoological Society has raised
approximately $21 million and reports that its goal is to raise the full $25 million in
private donations by December 31, 2000.
The Zoological Society Board of Directors and Zoo management consider
implementation of Phase II of the Master Plan to be an absolute necessity for
development of a first-class Zoo. The task of implementing Phase II consumes much
of the current management effort at the Zoo, and will continue to do so for a number
of years.
As part of this management audit, the Budget Analyst reviewed and analyzed the
Zoo's capital project expenditures since the Zoological Society took over
management of the Zoo in 1993. We also reviewed the proposed capital project
expenditures under the Zoo's $73 million capital improvement project, known as
Phase II of the Zoo's Master Plan.
Accomplishments
Performance audits by nature focus on opportunities for service improvements,
greater operational efficiencies, compliance with rules and regulations, and
enhanced effectiveness. We must note however, that the Zoological Society has
achieved many notable accomplishments at the Zoo. This report includes examples
of such accomplishments, particularly in the areas of veterinary care and general
animal care.
The Zoological Society has provided the Budget Analyst with a listing of Society
accomplishments at the Zoo since the Management Agreement went into effect.
That listing, unedited by the Budget Analyst, is shown below in its entirety.
San Francisco Zoological Society Accomplishments from 1993-1999
Since signing the Lease Partnership Agreement in 1993, the San Francisco
Zoological Society has made great strides serving its major constituents: the
Animals, the Public, and the Global Conservation Community, as well as fulfilling
its role in its Partnership with the Citv. At the heart of the transformation of the
Zoo are several key improvements in animal care, financial management, and
public service and community outreach. The transformation of the Zoo is well
underway, and there is highly visible progress. The following are specific
accomplishments and improvements for the benefit of the Zoo's major constituents.
VI
Office of the Budget Analyst
Introduction
I) The Animals: Animal care at the San Francisco Zoo has improved dramatically
over the last 5 years and is now acknowledged to be excellent. This has been the
first priority for Society resources. Over the past 6 years, the Zoological Society has
invested over $17,000,000 in 7 new animal exhibits, 20 animal exhibit renovations,
and 13 major maintenance projects. With the guidance of Dr. Freeland Dunker,
veterinary care has improved greatly and is seen by staff and external experts as an
exceptional strength of the Zoo. These factors, and the devotion of well-trained
animal staff, have resulted in an animal collection that is healthy, that plays a
crucial role in species survival programs, and that inspires and educates visitors.
A) Exhibits: The Society raised and spent $17,000,000 on new construction
projects, renovations, improvements and maintenance of exhibits. Some of
the projects listed have involved the complete rebuilding of structures, major
landscaping and irrigation of areas, installation of animal management
features and animal enrichment devices. Public concerns such as public
viewing, barriers, or safety-related repairs were incorporated in the
renovations.
1) New Construction
(a) Feline Conservation Center (09/94)
(b) Australian WalkAbout (06/95)
(c) Wart Hog Exhibit (03/96)
(d) Children's Zoo Entrance Complex (09/96)
(e) Avian Conservation Center (04/97)
(f) African Lion Cub Exhibit (05/97)
(g) Rainbow Landing (lorikeets) (04/98)
(h) Puente al Sur (Bridge to the South) (05/99)
2) Major Renovations & Improvements
(a) North American river otter exhibit (05/94)
(b) Lion House outdoor grottos (09/94)
(c) Spectacled bear exhibit (10/94)
(d) Zebra Yard (11/94)
(e) Eagle Island (06/95)
(f) African wild dog exhibit (05/95)
(g) Flamingo Lake (06/95)
(h) Monkey Island demolished (07/95)
(i) African elephant exhibit (08/95)
(j) Hippopotamus exhibit (11/95)
(k) Tropical Building (indoor aviary) (05/96)
(1) Ring-tailed lemur exhibit (07/96)
(m) Kodiak bear exhibit (11/96)
(n) Gerenuk yard (04/97)
vu
Office of the Budget Analyst
Introduction
(o) Creation of the Billabong
(p) Aye-Aye Forest (Nocturnal Gallery)
(q) Asian elephant exhibit
(r) Pygmy hippo exhibit
(s) Primate Discovery Center Terrace
(t) Children's Zoo Barnyard
(05/97)
(08/97)
(12/97 & 3/99)
(08/98)
(11/98)
(03/99)
3) Major Maintenance projects
(a) The Zoo's aging infrastructure was successfully replaced by DP W with
the 1990 Earthquake Bond with minimal disruption to the Zoo and its
guests
(b) Holding areas were built behind mountain goat yard
(c) The Africa barn's roof was replaced
(d) Roof and floors were replaced in the Insect Zoo
(e) Installed shift doors between bear grottos to provide bears with access
to other exhibits
(f) Installed heating and filter system to the macaque pool
(g) Renovated and graded black rhino yard
(h) Added softer substrate to the giraffe and Asian elephant exhibits
(i) Transitioned old capybara exhibit to garden
(j) A pool for fishing cats was constructed
(k) The former lion cub exhibit was remodeled to accommodate tigers
(1) Temporary repairs were made to prevent further deterioration to the
Mother's Building
(m) Installed heating and air conditioning to exhibits in the Primate
Discovery Center
B) Veterinary Care: Under the leadership of Dr. Freeland Dunker, the quality of
veterinary care has improved greatly and is seen by staff and external
experts as a great strength of the Zoo. The veterinary staff has made a
number of important improvements over the last 5 years:
1) Provide care for approximately 749 animal patients, 24 hours a day, 7
days a week. Quality of animal care meets or exceeds all requirements of
the AZA. By meeting these criteria, AZA accreditation was renewed in
1994 and 1998.
2) Expanded on-call veterinary staff, increased clerical support
3) Streamlined medication purchasing system
4) All animals at the Zoo now receive regularly scheduled periodic checkups
and preventive care
5) The Zoo Hospital strengthened its role in educating externs and animal
staff in the recognition and treatment of exotic species
6) Provide emergency care for marine mammals and birds brought in by
GGNRA, the Randall Museum, Steinhart Aquarium and the U.S. Forestry
Service.
vui
Office of the Budget Analyst
Introduction
7) Purchased new equipment and upgraded existing equipment. Examples
include:
(a) Endoscope
(b) Computer network upgrade and Y2K compliance
(c) Ultrasound machine
(d) Video monitoring and recording device for endoscopy
(e) Capture equipment (i.e., nets, crates, flexible stretcher, etc.)
8) Significant animal care accomplishments include:
(a) Asian elephant's Mycobacterium tuberculosis treatment
(b) Evaluated and modified preventative medicine program
(c) On-going dietary and nutritional studies being researched and
developed with a number of species in conjunction with other
institutions
(d) The Hospital staff developed and performed intensive neo-natal care
for a variety of animals
(e) Provide externships for a number of veterinary students and
technicians
(f) Diagnosis and treatment of cancer in koalas and endangered felines
C) Animal Management: Animal management staff, who have played a critical
role in the improvements in animal care, have made a number of changes to
build skills and enable greater care.
1) Emphasis on education and staff development has increased. This
includes participation in training workshops given by other zoo
professionals. Some animal keepers are in continuing education and use
their unique connection to the Zoo to research for their thesis papers.
2) The Zoo has established animal keeper staging areas adjacent to the
exhibits
3) Curators and animal keepers have participated in the development of a
comprehensive, long-term animal collection plan
4) A portion of the browse collection program (i.e., eucalyptus leaves, acacia
branches, etc., fed to many animals) transitioned to the Horticulture staff,
freeing up animal keeper time so they may focus on animal care
5) Animal keeper staff was reorganized into Animal Management divisions
(carnivores/primates, birds, hoofstock/marsupials/pachyderms, and special
collections), resulting in more specific roles and responsibilities
6) Animal keepers have developed and implemented a series of operant
training procedures resulting from courses and training offered by the
American Association of Zoo Keepers, and with consultation with other
zoos.
7) Numerous animal enrichment programs have been designed and
implemented by the Animal Management staff
8) Increased field study projects for animal keepers, i.e., lemur release
project in Madagascar; census-taking of large herbivores in Africa
IX
Office of the Budget Analyst
Introduction
9) Conference participation has expanded (American Association of Zoo
Keepers, AZA regional and national conferences, special interest seminars).
D) Significant Births since 1993: The Zoo has been involved in the American
Zoo and Aquarium Association's Species Survival Plans (SSP), and continues
to breed species based on SSP recommendations, working to maintain captive
populations of threatened or endangered species in North American zoos.
1) Western lowland gorillas (2)
2) Black rhinoceros (3)
3) Bald eagles (33)
4) Koalas (6)
5) Snow leopards (3)
6) Francois' langurs (6)
7) Howler monkeys (3)
8) Emperor tamarins (7)
9) Ring-tailed lemurs (2)
10) Magellanic penguins (20)
11) Snowy owls (3)
12) Musk oxen (10)
13) Madagascar cichlid fish (>100)
14) Navajo churro sheep (4)
15) Black & yellow dart poison frogs (10)
16) Nigerian dwarf goats (7)
17) Nyala (6)
18) Kookaburras (7)
19) Water buffalo (4)
20) Bennett's wallaby (1)
21) Bushbaby (1)
22) Squirrel monkey (1)
23) Blackbuck (1)
x
Office of the Budget Analyst
Introduction
II ) The Public: The public has responded to the improvements at the zoo and
its programs under the partnership and has supported the Zoo through
increased attendance and by passing Proposition C, the Zoo Bond, in June 1997.
A) Attendance: The Zoo has reversed the rapid decline in attendance seen
during the last years of City operation of the zoo through effective marketing
and improvements to the animal and visitors facilities.
SF Zoo Attendance 1988-99
1400 i
CAGR=(9.9%)
CAGR=3.4%
1988 89 90 91 92
93 94 95
Year
96
97 98 1999
1) The Zoo has had over 4,700,000 visitors in the last six years. Attendance
increased by 22% in the last five years. This represents a turnaround of
the rapidly declining attendance experienced in the last 5 years of City
operation of the zoo.
2) Over 20% of all admissions are free, resulting in wide access to Zoo by all
segments of the Bay Area. In addition to the mandated 12 free days, the
Zoo has added an additional eight free days which coincide with San
Francisco school teacher work davs.
3) Additional free access is provided under the Zoo's extensive Community
Access Program for "non-profit organizations providing services to person
who are physically or mentally disabled, children, youth or women at risk,
homeless, alcoholic and/or chemically recovering, low income seniors,
AIDS Programs and financially impoverished"
4) Discounts are provided for San Francisco residents, Muni riders,
disadvantaged access groups, and San Francisco Recreation and Park
groups
XL
Office of the Budget Analyst
Introduction
5) Well designed marketing and advertising campaigns and expanded public
relations efforts have heightened the public's awareness about the Zoo,
and helped to illustrate the Zoo's progress and its mission.
6) The Zoo has embarked on a series of ethnic outreach programs to increase
its accessibility to the community at large.
7) Entry fees remain at or below fees charged by other similar San Francisco
attractions and entertainment/recreation facilities based on a survey of 17
comparable institutions conducted by the Budget Analyst. In particular,
admission fees for children are the lowest of all institutions and those for
seniors are among the lowest.
Mar-94 Aug-94 Apr-95 Aug-95 Feb-96 Aug-96 Mar-97 Aug-97 Apr-98 Aug-98 Mar-99
Hgood □ excellent
B) Public Services: A number of other important improvements have been made.
As a result, over 90% of visitors rate their overall satisfaction with their zoo
visit as good or excellent.
1) A Zoo web site was developed and launched, giving the public 24-hour
access to information on Zoo animals, visitor information and events
2) A "Meet the Keeper" program was developed and implemented. These
scheduled keeper talks have proven popular with the visiting public.
3) Cal Trans highway and street signage were added, directing visitors to
the Zoo
4) All public restrooms have been painted and repaired
5) Major areas of the Zoo underwent new landscaping and beautification
xu
Office of the Budget Analyst
Introduction
6) The historic Little Puffer miniature steam train was rebuilt and now
operates daily on a new one-third mile track
7) Upgraded Playfield Cafe, Terrace Cafe, Plaza Cafe and eating areas
8) Graphics and signage have been upgraded and standardized; this is a
continuing process
C) Education: Education is a major component of the zoo's mission. Over the
last 5 years, the scope and reach of the zoo's programs have increased
significantly.
1) The Zoomobile (educational outreach program using live animals)
presents to approximately 13,000 children, teachers and seniors each year
(increasing 20% in the last five years)
2) Over 60,000 school children visit the Zoo annually on school field trips
3) Participation in summer programs (Nature Trail youth volunteer
program, Junior Zoologist program, etc.) for youth and teens now exceeds
800
4) Volunteer hours on-site have increased by 50 in the last six years
(exceeding 360,000 hours since 1993)
5) Docent volunteers continue to be the backbone of the volunteer program,
with 211 docents in FY 97/98 working 7,375 hours leading tours, stationed
at biofact carts and teaching Zoomobile classes.
D) The Joint Zoo Committee (monthly public meetings led by three members of
the Recreation and Park Commissioners and three members from the San
Francisco Zoological Society Board of Directors) has held 11 open meetings
annually to provide information, garner approvals on agenda items, and
gather public comment and input into Zoo operations and policy decisions.
III. The Global Conservation Community: The zoo has increased its impact
on global conservation efforts through participation in field conservation, scientific
research, and on-site conservation programs.
A) Field Conservation programs: The zoo participates in a number of important
cooperative field research programs, several of which tie back to planned
exhibits.
1) The Madagascar Fauna Group
2) The Zoo Conservation Outreach Program
3) Giant Panda Task Force
4) Madidi Park program
5) IUCN Declining Amphibian Populations Task Force
XUL
Office of the Budget Analyst
Introduction
B) Scientific Research programs have become an important part of the zoo's
contribution to global conservation knowledge.
1) The veterinary staff conducts extensive research in the diagnosis and
treatment of disease in exotic animals, i.e., avian malaria, mammalian
tuberculosis, as well as dietary and nutritional requirements for animals
such as the African hedgehog, musk ox, and Chilean flamingos.
2) Animal staff research projects include:
(a) Aye-Aye Behavior studies
(b) Lemur diet study
(c) Musk oxen diet study
(d) Veterinary studies
(e) Gorilla Dietary Studies
3) The zoo provides support to the Genomic resource bank
4) Zoo staff are active in publications in peer-reviewed journals and
presentations at national meetings
(a) Social sciences and education
(b) Husbandry
(c) Molecular genetics
(d) Ethology
(e) Reproductive physiology
(f) Field conservation
(g) Zoo operations
(h) Veterinary medicine
5) The zoo also supports a range of graduate and professional research
programs as well as student research programs
C) On-Site Conservation Efforts
1) Bald Eagle Recovery Project
2) Captive breeding programs (Species Survival Plans for many of the zoo's
endangered species including lemurs, koalas, gorillas, black rhinos, snow
leopards)
3) Waste reduction management programs
IV. The Partnership with the Citv: As a result of the Partnership and
changes to the way the zoo is operated, the City has limited the cost of its
support for the zoo while enabling substantial improvements in performance.
A) Operations: Operating changes have resulted in significant improvements
against a number of performance metrics.
1) The Lease Partnership Agreement with the City was extended for a second
five-year term in 1998, recognizing the Society's progress at the zoo.
2) City expenditures on zoo annual operations have been capped at $4 million
XIV
Office of the Budget Analyst
Introduction
3) The Zoological Society continues to maintain its American Zoo and
Aquarium Association accreditation (re-accreditations were issued in 1994
and 1998 after the accreditation was tabled for review in 1993)
4) The Zoological Society's computer and operating systems were
successfully replaced in 1999, and are now fully Y2K compliant
5) The Zoological Society staff now includes more women in management,
and throughout the workforce. In addition, employment programs aimed
at at-risk teens and developmentally and physically disabled workers
have increased diversity in full-time and seasonal positions.
6) Approximately 50% of the employees hired by the Zoological Society at all
levels over the last 4 years are ethnic minorities.
7) The Zoological Society has developed a new Master Plan for the New Zoo,
and is currently finalizing construction documents and bid packages. The
public has been apprised of each step during the planning process, and
their feedback has been an integral part of the design process.
8) The Zoological Society has maintained a positive working relationship
with the Unions representing its staff and the Civil Service employees
B) Development: In the past six years the San Francisco Zoological Society has
raised in excess of $48 million to support ongoing operations, construction
and renovation of the Zoo. The key metric of zoo performance is whether its
funding commitments have been met and whether the funds have been raised
in a cost effective manner. The development department has been able to
meet its fundraising goals for both the annual operations and capital projects
within budget.
1) The Zoological Society's Founders' Fund goal of $10M was exceeded in the
first four years of the partnership.
2) The Society has raised approximately $21 million towards its $25 million
goal for the Phase 2 (Campaign for the New Zoo) capital program. Almost
$10 million of this amount was raised directly from members of the
Zoological Society Board of Directors
3) Membership revenues have increased 17% in the last five years
4) Event revenue has increased by 107% in the last five years
5) Fund raising has increase almost 80% over the last 5 years
6) A total of $48.6 million have been raised at a cost of $11.2 million, a
return of 4.3 to 1 on total development expenditures.
7) The returns on development expenditures for operating fundraising have
improved in each of the last 4 years. As a result of reorganizations within
development, the average operating funds raised per staff person in
1997/98 was $397,515, which now exceeds the average at comparable
zoos.
XV
Office of the Budget Analyst
Introduction
8) Capital fund raising returns have exceeded 15 to 1, which is well above
industry benchmarks.
9) The Zoological Society headed efforts for the successful 1997 Zoo Bond
measure (Proposition C). Thousands of volunteer hours were dedicated to
the campaign, which was approved by a two-thirds majority vote by the
citizens of San Francisco.
B) Financial Situation: As a result of increased attendance and development
success, the financial situation of the Zoological Society has improved
significantly. Revenues and endowment have grown while debt has been
reduced. The zoo has met its goal of breakeven financial operations in
1997/98 and expects to achieve a surplus in 1998/99.
1) The Zoological Society's operating revenues have increased by $4.5M to
$15M, while the management fee paid to the Society from the City has
remained fixed at $4M per year
2) The Zoological Society reached breakeven operating performance in FY
1997/98, as per its 5 year goal
3) The Zoological Society expects to post an operating surplus in excess of
$500,000 for FY 1998/99, although audited financial statements are not
yet available. These funds will be invested back in zoo programs or used
to decrease debt.
4) The Zoological Society's capital endowment has increased from $1.2M to
$3.9M in six years
5) The zoo has earned a 22% annual return on its invested funds. This
return compares to an average cost of 7% on its line of credit, indicating
current investment policies have resulted in additional funds available to
the zoo and increased financial flexibility as a result of the line of credit.
6) Cash flows for the zoo vary greatly depending on whether the zoo is
raising capital funds or spending the funds on exhibits or other capital
assets. Over the last 5 years, the zoo has experienced both net inflows
and outflows on an annual basis, using an unsecured line of credit to
finance cash needs for operations and capital projects. The balance owed
on the line of credit was $1,194,359 as of June 1999, which represents a
reduction of $1,234,391 from the borrowing peak in June 1997.
7) The zoo's balance sheet as of June 30,1998, shows the zoo has $12.4
million in total assets and total liabilities of $4.1 million. This represents
a material improvement in liability coverage over previous years.
8) Assuming the Zoological Society continues to keep capital expenditures
apace with fundraising and that operating results remain positive, the zoo
will have adequate funds to meet its current obligations.
xvi
Office of the Budget Analyst
Introduction
Acknowledgements
The Budget Analyst would like to acknowledge and thank the Chairman of the
Zoological Society Board of Directors, Mr. Paul Jansen, the Zoo Director, Mr. David
Anderson, his deputy directors, and the management and staff of the Department
for their cooperation and willing assistance during this performance audit.
The Budget Analyst would also like to thank Dr. Joel Parrott, Director of the
Oakland Zoo and a zoo veterinarian, for his invaluable examination and evaluation
of animal management and care at the San Francisco Zoo.
We would also like to thank Mr. Jason Yuen, former Director of Planning and
Construction of the San Francisco Airport and currently, as a construction
consultant, Chairman, Master Plan Programs Advisory Board, San Francisco
Airport, for his invaluable guidance and assistance in examining and evaluating the
Zoo's Phase II Construction Program.
We would also like to acknowledge the assistance of the Health Department's
Environmental Health Division for examining food service at the Zoo; the Water
Quality Division of the Public Utilities Commission for evaluating the water at the
Zoo's lakes, and Mr. Severin Rizzo, Chief of Custodial Services at the San Francisco
Airport, for assisting our examination and evaluation of the Zoo's custodial needs.
xuu
Office of the Budget Analyst
Section 1.1: Animal Management & Care
♦ The quality of animal care has improved since the Zoological Society
assumed management in 1993. The veterinary program has improved
dramatically. The veterinarians have an excellent working relationship with
the Animal Keepers. The Animal Keepers are professional, knowledgeable,
and caring as a group. An independent evaluation by Dr. Joel Parrott
concluded that veterinary care at the San Francisco Zoo is excellent and
general care is good. The greatest deficiency in animal care remains the
physical plant.
♦ The Budget Analyst conducted a survey of Animal Keepers to obtain their
opinions and suggestions on a variety of animal management and care
issues. Among the more significant findings of that survey are that 1) morale
among the various Animal Keeper Sections varies between reasonably good
to extremely poor; 2) there are perceived wide variances in the levels of
actual job performance and job demands placed on individual Animal
Keepers; 3) many Animal Keepers believe that their experiences and
opinions are not sufficiently considered or appreciated prior to initiating
animal management policies; and 4) Animal Keepers have a high degree of
confidence in the Zoo's Veterinarian. Ideas for improving animal and
animal-related management, such as staggering Animal Keeper work hours
to allow the animals more time outside and to possibly keep the Zoo open for
longer hours, should be seriously considered.
♦ The most glaring deficiencies in animal housing and exhibit facilities,
because they do not provide natural environments and/or are limited in
space, are facilities for the chimpanzees, orangutans, elephants, bears, sea
lions, hippopotami, giraffe, and siamang. All, with the exception of the
northern bears and sea lions, are scheduled for new facilities within Phase II
(by the end of 2004) of the Zoo Master Plan. If the sea lions and northern
bears are to remain at the Zoo, the existing facilities should be removed and
new state-of-the-art exhibits constructed within the Phase II time span.
Otherwise, the animals should be relocated to other institutions with better
facilities. As cited by Dr. Parrott, ten to fifteen years is too long to address
the deficiencies of the existing habitats, although the habitats do meet
current AZA and USDA standards.
♦ Zoo management has not responded appropriately to non-compliance
citations resulting from inspections conducted by the Department of
Agriculture, Animal & Plant Health Inspection Service (USDA-APHIS). Since
1992, the Zoo has received one official warning "ticket," five letters of
warning, and two warning statements on inspection reports. Most of these
deficiencies dealt with repeated maintenance problems, such as rusting wire
mesh in the Primate Discovery Center and deteriorating walls of the Asian
Rhino housing area. Zoo staff should promptly address the non-compliant
items and similar conditions in other parts of the Zoo, rather than
challenging the report citations or fixing only the specific location cited.
1
Office of the Budget Analyst
Section 1.1:
Animal Management & Care
As part of our performance audit of the San Francisco Zoological Gardens, we
examined the status of animal management and care to determine whether 1) the
management and care of the living collection of the San Francisco Zoo is in
accordance with applicable regulations and good practices, and 2) the Animal
Management Department is accomplishing its objectives and goals in an economical
and efficient manner.
To accomplish these objectives, we:
> Engaged the services of Dr. Joel Parrott, a Zoo veterinarian and Director of the
Oakland Zoo, to perform an evaluation of animal management and animal care.
> Interviewed Animal Management Department personnel, including the General
Curator, Associate Curators, Senior Animal Keepers, Animal Keepers, the
Curator of Collections, the Commissary Manager, and the Zoo Veterinarian.
> Reviewed the 1998 and 1993 American Zoological Association (AZA)
Accreditation Reports.
> Reviewed reports of inspections performed by the Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service (APHIS) of the United States Department of Agriculture
(USD A).
> Reviewed various records and reports held by the Animal Management
Department.
> Developed and administered an "Animal Keeper Questionnaire."
> Visited the San Diego Zoo, the Oakland Zoo, and the Phoenix Zoo. Obtained
animal management materials from the San Diego Zoo and the Oakland Zoo.
Background
The mission of the Animal Management Division is to manage and care for the
living collection of the Zoo in support of the Zoo's overall mission. In order to
perform this mission, as of August 1999, the Animal Management Division includes
a total of 99 employees, allocated as follows: 54 full-time, 15 part-time, nine
temporary, nine intern, and 12 as-needed employees. An organizational chart of the
Animal Management Department is shown on the following page (Exhibit 1.1.1).
The Animal Management Division's FY 1998-99 Budget for the Zoo's Animal
Services Program is $6,970,672, which is approximately 3.3 percent greater than
the $6,745,195 expended for Animal Services in FY 1997-98, as shown in Exhibit
1.1.2.
2
Office of the Budget Analyst
5
«3
c -
a o
c c
1. o
c 3
5
— m C
c o <u
< 2S O
w ■ — <n
— O UJ
Krai
6 S;
c
c
a
W
X —
c
< X S
— c <:
33 — ■— CO
< CJ K Co
.5 &
E a> J-.
<r* F-
CO
c
■9
-si
o
CO
c
>
a
6
CJ
a
a
c
m
<
— a
c 11)
o ~
- — o
en >
Ol
■s.
s O
Votcri
(30 lii-
^ c o
'Egi
< 8- u
CO
Section 1.1:
Animal Management & Care
Exhibit 1.1.2
Animal Management Division
FY 1998-99 Budget
Expense
Classification
Amount
Primates/Carnivores
$86/, 839
Hooistock/Pachyderms
902,892
Avian
433,892
TT j_ * 1 l
Horticulture
432,264
Maintenance
640,873
Veterinary Services
486,629
City Services (Sewer, L,H&P)
925,000
Custodial Services
412,108
Collection/Commissary
827,528
Contract Services
210,000
G & A Allocation
423,548
General Curator
127,101
Admissions
281.442
Total
$6,970,672
As previously stated, with the concurrence of the AZA, the Budget Analyst obtained
the services of Dr. Joel Parrot, a zoo veterinarian and Director of the Oakland Zoo,
to perform an evaluation of animal management and animal care at the San
Francisco Zoo. Based on our interviews, observations, and reviews of written
records, we concur with Dr. Parrot's findings. We do, however, believe that the level
of dissatisfaction with Zoo management expressed by Animal Keepers may be more
serious and more widespread than indicated in Dr. Parrott's report.
Dr. Parrott, by virtue of his extensive experience in various branches of zoology, was
able to interpret the raw data on animal management issues obtained through his
observations, interviews, and reviews of written reports and to render professional
judgments based on those interpretations. We believe that Dr. Parrott's evaluation
report provides an accurate description of existing animal care at the San Francisco
Zoo and also provides sound recommendations for improving animal management
and care, animal facilities, and staff development.
As of August 1999, the San Francisco Zoo employed a total of 62 Animal Keepers
and two Senior Animal Keepers (referred to collectively as Animal Keepers, for the
sake of brevity), with employment statuses as follows:
4
Office of the Budget Analyst
Section 1.1:
Animal Management & Care
An Associate Curator (Curator is the term used at zoos for a management position
with animal collection responsibilities) normally heads each Division; however, the
Bird Section has been without an Associate Curator since October of 1997.
Animal Keepers have varied backgrounds. The City Animal Keepers as a group are
generally older, have many years of Ajiimal Keeper experience, including experience
at other animal facilities. Education among Animal Keepers ranges from a high
school education to a Master's Degree. The one common element among the Animal
Keepers we interviewed was a genuine concern for the well being of their animals.
Comments on Dr. Parrott's Review of Animal
Management at the San Francisco Zoo
Dr. Parrott's report is appended to this section of the audit report as Section 1.1a,
"Review of Animal Management at the San Francisco Zoo." Dr. Parrott's report
should be read in its entirety in order to gain an understanding of the current state
of animal management and care at the San Francisco Zoo and comparisons to
animal management and care in the recent past.
Budget Analyst comments, primarily for purposes of clarification, elaboration, or
emphasis, are discussed under the topic name found in Dr. Parrott's report.
Facilities
If the northern bears and the sea lions are to remain a part of the Zoo's
animal collection, new, state-of-the-art exhibits should be constructed for
those animals during the Phase II time period (Phase II projects are
currently scheduled to be completed by the end of 2004).
Management
Dr. Parrott's report contains the statement "Single specimen collection
holding is present, but is generally justifiable due to special circumstances on
a case-by-case basis." The Zoological Society's Exhibits Committee oversees
animal collection issues for the Zoo. The Budget Analyst recommends that
the Exhibits Committee review plans for single specimens currently in the
Zoo's animal collection, on a priority basis.
As stated by Dr. Parrott, "A more formalized keeper training program should
be in place." In that regard, the Budget Analyst has provided Zoo
management with a copy of San Diego Zoo's "Animal Care Keeper Handbook"
which can be used as a reference to assist in developing a list of tasks that
should be covered in an Animal Keeper training syllabus.
6
Office of the Budget Analyst
Section 1.1:
Animal Management & Care
USDA Reports
Following our review of recent APHIS inspections at the San Francisco Zoo
and in order to obtain a better understanding of the Zoo's compliance history
with APHIS deficiency findings, we contacted the Supervisory Animal Care
Specialist for the Western Region. In response to our request, the Supervisory
Animal Care Specialist has provided the Budget Analyst with a letter
concerning the compliance history of the San Francisco Zoo that is shown in
Attachment I to this audit report section. We have summarized that
compliance history, as follows:
1. For the three-year period of 1996-1998, the Zoo received four complete
inspections and four additional inspections at Site 3, which is the bison
site at Golden Gate Park, due to public complaints. No Category IV
citations (repeat violations) resulted from the public complaint
inspections. However, the Zoo received numerous Category IV citations on
the complete inspections during that period.
2. Since 1992, the San Francisco Zoo has received one official warning
"ticket" from the APHIS, five letters of warning, and two warning
statements on inspection reports.
3. The Zoo has responded in writing to challenge many of the inspector's
citations. As reported by the APHIS Regional Office, "this level of formal
protestation is much higher than is usual with other licensees, most of
whom work out their disagreements with inspectors' citations during the
outbriefing process."
Our recommendations concerning the San Francisco Zoo's relations with the
USDA-APHIS, are identical to those stated by Dr. Parrott, which we repeat
here in abbreviated form, for emphasis.
1. Zoo management needs to develop a better working relationship with the
USDA-APHIS. Zoo staff should promptly address noncompliant items and
negotiate for the best possible reasonable length of time for compliance.
Zoo staff should not challenge minor findings, and reserve appeals for the
rare, major noncompliant items that may, in fact, not threaten an
animal's welfare and may not fairly qualify as non-compliant.
2. Zoo management should increase the Maintenance Department to address
deferred maintenance items until maintenance is reasonably caught up.
One method of increasing the size of maintenance staff without increasing
operating costs is to assign new maintenance staff to bond-approved
repair items.
3. Zoo management should develop a maintenance quality control program
to insure that significant maintenance items are identified prior to APHIS
inspections.
Office of the Budget Analyst
7
Section 1.1:
Animal Management & Care
Staff Morale
Staff morale in animal sections ranges from reasonably good to extremelv
poor. Our interviews of Animal Keepers and our evaluations of the Animal
Keeper survey indicate to the Budget Analyst that morale issues may be
more serious than those observed by Dr. Parrott. The leadership of the Board
of Directors is aware that the existing environment needs to improve greatly
if the organization is to move forward, and has hired top-level management
staff to improve operations and communication within the Zoo organization.
Also, a consultant has been retained to assist in conflict resolution. We
concur with Dr. Parrott's recommendations, with the addition that "team
building" should be an integral part of the development process.
Bison Exhibit: Golden Gate Park
Dr. Parrott's report includes five recommendations concerning the bison
exhibit at Golden Gate Park, four of which are the responsibility of the
Recreation and Park Department. The Budget Analyst has obtained a
detailed listing of minor maintenance and long-term exhibit modifications
that would improve the bison exhibit, according to Zoo management. We have
included the listing of improvements as Attachment II to this report, and
recommend that the Recreation and Park Department perform the work to
complete the projects.
Master Plan and Bond Program
Dr. Parrott's statement regarding the Zoo's elephants (the San Francisco Zoo
has two African elephants and two Asian elephants) is repeated here for
emphasis.
"At this point, Zoo management has not decided whether African
elephants or Asian elephants or both will be part of the long-term
plan. This will need to be decided very soon, because elephant
facilities occupy a central role in the thematic display, and will
consume a significant portion of the space, funding, and energy of
the Zoo. In addition, the elephant facilities are especially poor."1
Concerning the sequencing of Phase II projects, Zoo management has
explained, to the satisfaction of Dr. Parrott and the Budget Analyst, that the
need to proceed with Phase II projects as currently planned is driven by the
1 According to the Zoo's 1998 AZA Accreditation Report, the existing African elephant facilities do
not comply with AZA minimum standards.
8
Office of the Budget Analyst
Section 1.1:
Animal Management & Care
following factors: 1) the presence of existing buildings on future exhibit sites;
2) the need to develop a new disability-accessible entrance and needed visitor
services, such as restrooms; and 3) the lengthy time required to design, build,
and manage the introduction of animals to naturalistic, mixed-species
habitats.
Bond Program Funds and Expenditures
Dr. Parrott recommends that no more than 20 to 22 percent of bond funds
should be expended on "soft costs." As detailed in Section 5 of this audit
report, "Capital Projects," the Budget Analyst recommends that "soft costs"
be limited to 22 percent, thus saving approximately $3.64 million that can be
used to construct additional improvements.
Privatization
Dr. Parrott's statement regarding the transfer of Zoo management from the
City to the Zoological Society is repeated here for emphasis.
"Conditions at the SF Zoo in virtually every category were worse
when the City ran the zoo. Poor morale was a major contributing
factor to the previous zoo director leaving on stress disability. The
Zoo Director position remained vacant for a prolonged period of
time. The Primates Discovery Center, which has had so many
animal management problems, was built under previous
management. Veterinary care for the animals was poor, under
investigation, and lacked the confidence of the keeper staff. Most
indicative of all, conditions were so poor that the SF Zoo was on the
verge of losing its accreditation by the Association of Zoos and
Aquariums. In 1992, the accreditation commission was very
concerned about the poor physical plant, the lack of funding to
make major capital improvements, and the borderline funding for
operations. Accreditation was tabled for one year until the major
issues of the management contract were developed. The SF Zoo was
accredited in 1993, with the expectation that under the new
financial arrangement of privatization, new funding sources would
be developed to resolve the serious concerns of the commission."
9
Office of the Budget Analyst
Section 1.1:
Animal Management & Care
Animal Keeper Perspectives
During the course of the prehminary survey phase of the Zoo audit, it became
apparent from talking to Animal Keepers that as a group they had a number of
serious concerns about animal management, in the comprehensive sense of that
term. In order to collect information on the concerns in a manner that would render
valuable information for improving the organization, we elected to develop an
Animal Keeper questionnaire. The questionnaire was developed and disseminated
to 48 Animal Keepers. We received responses from 25 of the Animal Keepers.
The auditors then compiled the responses from the individual questionnaires and
provided access to that data, which is not attributed to any individual Animal
Keeper, to the Chairman of the Zoological Society and to the Zoo's Director of
Human Resources on a strictly confidential basis: by agreement, no other individual
is permitted access to the non-attributed, compiled data. The Chairman of the
Zoological Society and the Director of Human Resources collaborated to produce a
synthesis of compiled responses, strictly for the Zoo's sole use and not a part of this
report, in a form that could be used to develop plans for improving the Zoo's
operations.
The Animal Keeper Questionnaire synthesis that follows was developed by the
Budget Analyst completely independent from the syntheses compiled by the
Chairman of the Zoological Society and the Zoo's Director of Human Resources.
The questions included in the Questionnaire generally pertain to the following
topics concerning animal management and animal care:
• Management, including communication, priorities, allocation of resources,
inclusion in decision making (consideration of ideas), support for staff
development, commitment to safety, upholding work standards, and morale;
• Quality of Animal Care;
• Strong and weak elements of the animal collection;
• Zoo's Greatest Strengths/Greatest Weaknesses;
• Morale and Management/Animal Keeper relations;
• Ideas for Improving Zoo operations.
10
Office of the Budget Analyst
Section 1.1:
Animal Management & Care
Responses to the 24 questions, many of which had sub-questions, varied widely and
in some cases were contradictory. However, prevalent attitudes can be discerned in
most cases. Our synopsis of the responses, subsumed under the foregoing topics, is
as follows:
Management
Those sections that rated Section leadership more favorably also rated other
leadership indicators and morale more favorably.
The Section with the least favorable leadership responses also expressed
comments indicating intra-Section difficulties amongst Keepers.
Where significant differences in job performances occur, the belief is that
adequate standards of performance should be enforced.
Many Animal Keepers believe that their counsel is sought only after decisions
have been made.
Training for new Animal Keepers appears to be not standardized and
inadequate.
Animal Keepers would appreciate seeing their leadership out in the Zoo on a
regular basis.
Quality of Animal Care
Most think that animal care, within the limitations of the facilities afforded, is
at least good.
Most think that veterinary care is excellent and believe that the Zoo is
fortunate to have the services of its Veterinarian.
Some Animal Keepers cite a lack of quality time for animal enrichment and
studying the animals.
The animal facilities most frequently cited as being deficient are the
Chimpanzee/Orangutan facilities, the Elephant facilities (especially, the African
Elephant facilities), and the Bear Grottos.
11
Office of the Budget Analyst
Section 1.1:
Animal Management & Care
Strong and weak elements of the Animal Collection
Animal Keepers would like to see, and believe the public would appreciate,
more animals.
There was a wide variance in the responses to the strong and weak elements of
the collection. Based on survey responses, the following species stand out:
Zoo's Greatest Strengths/Greatest Weaknesses
Animal Keepers by far believe the Zoo's greatest strength lies in its dedicated,
talented, staff. The Education Center, the Animal Resource Center (ARC), and
the Children's Zoo are mentioned prominently.
Staffing Levels
The general consensus is that the animal sections are moderately understaffed.
Supporting Sections
Animal Keepers gave the highest rating for support to Visitor Services followed
by the Horticulture Section (Veterinary Services weren't considered here).
Ideas for Improving Zoo Operations - Note: The Budget Analyst has selected the
following suggestions and opinions for improving Zoo operations from the many
that we received in our survey of Animal Keepers.
• Longer days for Animal Keepers (for example, four 10 hour shifts per week)
to allow animal sufficient time outside.
• Regular and improved communications between Animal Sections concerning
current animal conditions and care (e.g., a common bulletin board).
• Zoo is too small to do both elephant species well.
Strong
Gorillas
Weak
Elephants
Bears
Pygmy Hippo
Chimps/Orangutans
Tomato Frog(s)
Tigers/Lions
Kangaroos
Lemurs
Office of the Budget Analyst
12
Section 1.1:
Animal Management & Care
• More enrichment could improve animal care and the visitor's experience.
• There should be less territorialism between Animal Sections. There should
be more management consistency between animal sections.
• Pay more attention to the Bird Section - it is generally overlooked and
underrepresented.
• It would be great to have a behavioral specialist on staff to address
enrichment and training issues - like they have at the Portland Zoo.
• Keepers should be given time to spend on enrichment and training and be
made to spend less time building exhibits. (Many of our attempts at
maintenance take a long time and must be re-done by the Maintenance
staff).
• Aggressively address problem employees.
• Make it easier for senior people to work part time without losing seniority to
the "as needed" staff.
• The recognition of the Animal Keepers as professional caretakers, and the
creation of a real conservation department with a coherent theme of
environmental awareness and education is the greatness potential strength
of the Zoo.
• The Zoo needs to address minority attendance effectively.
• A dedicated Animal Keeper with adequate time could improve the overall
appearance of an area, provide more enrichment and conditioning to make
the animals visible and active for more of the day, be present to educate,
answer questions, and clear-up confusion for the visitor.
• Increase operating hours by staggering keeper work shifts. This should
increase revenue.
• Install educational graphics, hire more custodial staff to clean the trash up;
encourage people to sit and quietly observe the animals (through good
graphics and comfortable sitting areas); allow the keepers more time to be a
presence in the Zoo.
• Management needs to communicate better if they want gossip to decrease.
• The Zoo as a whole has been improving in the (blank) years I've been a
Keeper. There are many frustrations with my front line supervisor and some
peers. I am encouraged by both this questionnaire and the new H.R. person's
interest in specifics.
13
Office of the Budget Analyst
Section 1.1:
Animal Management & Care
• Animal Keepers should not be the end all for all other departments; when
something can't be accomplished by the appropriate department then it
becomes the responsibility of the overburdened animal keeper staff. Is any
department at the Zoo required to do similar varied work?
Animal Keeper Performance Evaluations
Zoo management has provided the Budget Analyst with a listing of regular, full-
time Animal Keepers annotated to show the date on which each of the Animal
Keepers last received a performance evaluation. Most of the Animal Keepers had
not been evaluated within the past year, some had not been evaluated since 1989 or
1991, and some had never been evaluated.
With regard to performance evaluations of City Animal Keepers, the City's policy,
which is contained in the City's "Handbook for Employees of the City and County of
San Francisco," is that performance evaluations for permanent employees must be
completed annually. The Zoological Society's policy is that the "frequency of
performance evaluations may vary depending upon length of service, job position,
past performance, changes in job duties or recurring performance problems."
According to the Zoo's Director of Human Resources, the Zoo's Employee Manual,
which includes the performance evaluation policy, is currently being revised. The
Budget Analyst recommends that the Zoo's performance evaluation policy be
amended to require annual evaluations and that a performance evaluation be
completed for all Animal Keepers who have not been evaluated within the last year,
whether City- or Zoological Society-employed, as soon as practicable, and annually
thereafter.
CONCLUSIONS
The quality of animal care has improved since the Zoological Society assumed
management in 1993. The veterinary program has improved dramatically. The
veterinarians have an excellent working relationship with the Animal Keepers. The
Animal Keepers are professional, knowledgeable, and caring as a group. An independent
evaluation by Dr. Joel Parrott concluded that veterinary care at the San Francisco Zoo is
excellent and general care is good. The greatest deficiency in animal care remains the
physical plant.
The animal housing and exhibits are a mixture of old and new, demonstrating a
wide range of conditions. The physical plant reflects a Zoo in transition. The newer
exhibits are generally very good, as are the gorilla exhibit, koala exhibit, portions of
the Primate Discovery Center, and the Children's Zoo. Excellent renovations were
completed in the PDC, North American River Otter, Flamingo Lake, Tropical
Building, and Warthog Exhibit. The Australian Walkabout is spacious and reflects
14
Office of the Budget Analyst
Section 1.1:
Animal Management & Care
the energy and efforts of zoo staff. The existing housing is generally good. The Avian
Conservation Center is an excellent facility. The Lorikeet Exhibit is well done and
equal to any of the walk-through lorikeet exhibits currently existing in the country.
There are a number of animal exhibits that are out-of-date and can only be
considered minimal facilities. The most glaring deficiencies in housing and exhibit
design are the chimpanzees, orangutans, elephants, bears, sea lions, hippopotamus,
giraffe, and siamang. All of these are recognized as minimal facilities by current Zoo
management. All, with the exception of the bears and sea lions, are scheduled for
new facilities within Phase II ($73 million) of the Master Plan. Somewhere in-
between are the enclosures for the greater cats. Although the Lion House is a public
sentimental favorite, it is clearly dated in concept and design. The animal holding
and exhibit facilities should be considered adequate but minimal. Many of the
facilities overall show a lack of general maintenance. Rust is a major problem with
the Sloat Boulevard location.
A significant concern is that of the sea Hon pool and bear grottos. The polar bears
and Kodiak bear do not appear in the Master Plan. However, the collection plan
indicates maintaining the polar bears, with the possibility of replacing the Kodiak
bear with a grizzly bear. Since Phase II of the Master Plan is scheduled to be
completed by the end of 2004, this means that the bears will be in the existing
grottos for ten years, and possibly longer. This is also true of the sea Hon and harbor
seal exhibits. A decision should be made sooner rather than later on whether these
species will be part of the Master Plan. If the seals and northern bears are not part
of the long-term plan for the Zoo, the animals should be relocated to other
institutions with better facilities. The bear grottos should then be removed. If the
animals are part of the Master Plan, the existing faciHties should be removed and
new state-of-the-art bear and sea lion exhibits constructed. Ten to fifteen years is
too long to address these concerns.
An elephant restraint chute, which can be relocated into the new exhibit when that
is completed, is needed for the African elephants. This will address a current
limitation of the existing facilities for African elephant management.
The Zoo and quality of animal care have improved since the SF Zoological Society
assumed management in 1993. The veterinary program has improved dramatically:
it was poor and is now excellent. The veterinarians have an exceUent working
relationship with the keepers. The veterinary care for the animals is excellent.
Diets have been reviewed, modified, and improved. Rodent control has improved
from poor to good. The keepers at the SF Zoo are professional, knowledgeable, and
caring as a group. Morale remains an issue and is still problematic in specific areas.
Numerous new exhibits, facilities, and renovations are very good to excellent. The
following Hst highlights the significant improvements attributable to the
management since the SF Zoological Society took over:
15
Office of the Budget Analyst
Section 2.1:
Animal Management & Care
New facilities
Avian Conservation Center
Feline Conservation Center ($2,000,000; replaced string of cat cages)
Australian WalkAbout ($562,000)
Puente al Sur
Lorikeets
Renovations:
Warthog exhibit ($150,000)
Flamingo Lake ($52,000)
River Otter exhibit ($234,000)
Lion Cub exhibit
Aviary/Tropical Building ($162,000)
Numerous major maintenance projects deferred from City management
A review of necropsy records reveals a mortality report well within the range of a
high quality animal program in a zoo with an animal collection comparable to the
size and makeup at the SF Zoo. The necropsies are well documented and supported
by histopathology examinations. There were no indicators of deaths due to
mismanagement in animal care or veterinary care. Strong confidence in the
veterinary department among keepers ran throughout the organization. The high
quality of veterinary care and high level of confidence in that care cannot be
overstated. It represents a real and measurable improvement in animal care from
the previous zoo management (considered poor at the time and under investigation)
and prior to the SF Zoological Society management of the zoo.
A survey of Animal Keepers to solicit ideas on improving animal and animal-related
management produced a number of excellent ideas for improving such management
and also reinforced our opinions concerning several management issues. Among the
more significant findings of the survey are that 1) morale among the various Animal
Keeper Sections varies between reasonably good to extremely poor; 2) standards for
selecting new animal keepers should be established, 3) there is a perceived wide
variance in the performance of various Animal Keepers and a perceived wide
variance in what is of demanded of various Animal Keepers; 4) many animal
keepers believe that their experiences and opinions concerning animal management
are not sufficiently appreciated or considered prior to initiating animal
management policies or implementing animal management projects; and 5) Animal
Keepers have a high degree of confidence in the Zoo's Veterinarian and believe that
the veterinary care afforded the animals is of the highest order.
The leadership of the Board of Directors is aware of the existing morale problems,
and that the existing organizational climate needs to improve greatly if the
organization is to move forward. The Zoological Society has recently hired top-level
management staff to improve operations and communication within the Zoo
organization. Also, a consultant has been retained to assist in conflict resolution.
16
Office of the Budget Analyst
Section 1.1:
Animal Management & Care
Animal Keepers by far believe the Zoo's greatest strength lies in its dedicated,
talented, staff. The Education Center, the Animal Resource Center (ARC), and the
Children's Zoo are mentioned prominently. Also, the Zoo's location is rated a plus.
Animal Keepers would like to see, and believe the public would appreciate, more
animals. (One Keeper responded to the question concerning the adequacy of staffing
by saying that current staffing is adequate given that the Zoo currently has only a
skeleton collection).
There was a wide variance in the responses to the strong and weak elements of the
collection. Based on survey responses, the following species stand out:
Zoo management has not responded appropriately to non-compliance citations
resulting from inspections conducted by the Department of Agriculture -Animal &
Plant Health Inspection Service (USDA-APHIS). S ince 1992, the Zoo has received
one official warning "ticket," five letters of warning, and two warning statements on
inspection reports. Most of these deficiencies dealt with repeated maintenance
problems, such as wire mesh rusting in the Primate Discovery Center and
deterioration in the walls of the Asian Rhino housing area. Zoo management has
recently initiated a better working relationship with the USDA-APHIS, beginning
with a meeting with USDA representatives in July of 1999.
At this point, Zoo management has not decided whether African elephants or Asian
elephants or both will be part of the long-term plan. This will need to be decided
very soon, because elephant facilities occupy a central role in the thematic display,
and will consume a significant portion of the space, funding, and energy of the Zoo.
In addition, the elephant facilities are especially poor.
One of the most important considerations for animal management is the
microclimate along Sloat Boulevard and the Great Highway. The toll that the
weather (cool, wind, fog, and salt air) takes on the structures is mentioned in the
accreditation report, as is the potential for the weather's effect on the animal's
health. Zoo staff at all levels were asked if the primates seemed generally
comfortable or uncomfortable in this climate, to see if the clinical picture suggested
that these temperatures might be too low for these animals. The general impression
of staff is that the animals acclimate to the climate and do well (even those that are
tropical species). Primates are exhibited in other areas in temperature North
Tigers/Lions
Kangaroos
Lemurs
Strong
Gorillas
Weak
Elephants
Bears
Pygmy Hippo
Chimps/Orangutans
Tomato Frog(s)
Office of the Budget Analyst
17
Section 1.1:
Animal Management & Care
American and voluntarily go outside when temperatures approach freezing. An
advantage of this site is that the average low temperature in the coldest month is
only 45 degrees. It has rarely reached freezing.
The bison exhibit in Golden Gate Park presents a special problem for all concerned.
Animal care and veterinary care are the responsibility of the San Francisco Zoo.
The enclosure and facility is the responsibility of the Recreation and Park
Department. The animals are exhibited under the license of the San Francisco Zoo.
USDA violations related to the facility result in citations given to the San Francisco
Zoo, though it would be Recreation and Park' responsibility. A citizens group known
as the Watch Bison Committee in Golden Gate Park monitors the site and
advocates for the animals.
A site visit to the bison exhibit revealed a group of animals which appear to be in
very good health. General Care of the animals themselves appears to be good,
although it was difficult to see due to the generally poor condition of the site. A few
piles of animal waste were present which should have been removed.
The bison exhibit physical site appeared worn and overgrown. Much of the site was
overgrown with weeds, and fencing appeared old and in some cases appeared to be
oriented for some previous function. "Do Not Feed" signage was present but poorly
displayed. Plans for new fencing and, more importantly, restoration of the main
field are in place and scheduled for construction. The Bison Watch Committee
volunteers have contributed project support and general maintenance work (weed
pulling etc.) but would like to see more support for the facility. The facility
improvements could be achieved at minor cost.
Annual performance evaluations have not been regularly completed for most
Animal Keepers.
Dr. Parrott's animal management evaluation contains the following statement
regarding the transfer of Zoo management from the City to the Zoological Society:
"Conditions at the SF Zoo in virtually every category were worse when
the City ran the zoo. Poor morale was a major contributing factor to
the previous zoo director leaving on stress disability. The Zoo Director
position remained vacant for a prolonged period of time. The Primates
Discovery Center, which has had so many animal management
problems, was built under previous management. Veterinary care for
the animals was poor, under investigation, and lacked the confidence
of the keeper staff. Most indicative of all, conditions were so poor that
the SF Zoo was on the verge of losing its accreditation by the
Association of Zoos and Aquariums. In 1992, the accreditation
commission was very concerned about the poor physical plant, the lack
of funding to make major capital improvements, and the borderline
18
Office of the Budget Analyst
Section 1.1:
Animal Management & Care
funding for operations. Accreditation was tabled for one year until the
major issues of the management contract were developed. The SF Zoo
was accredited in 1993, with the expectation that under the new
financial arrangement of privatization, new funding sources would be
developed to resolve the serious concerns of the Commission."
RECOMMENDATIONS
The Zoological Society should:
1.1.1 Acquire an elephant restraint chute as soon as possible, which can be
relocated into the new exhibit when that is completed. This will address a
current limitation of the existing facilities for African elephant
management.
1.1.2 Allocate more of the Maintenance Department's time for general facility
maintenance, rather than assignments to new exhibit construction
projects..
1.1.3 Develop a better working relationship with the USDA-APHIS. Zoo staff
should promptly address non-compliant items and negotiate for the best
possible reasonable length of time for compliance. Zoo staff should not
challenge minor findings, and reserve appeals for the rare major non-
compliant items that may, in fact, not threaten an animal's welfare and
may not fairly qualify as non-compliant.
1.1.4 Ensure that the entire Zoo management participates in regular leadership
training, to cultivate skills necessary to continue to improve staff morale.
1.1.5 Continue development of strategic planning, definition of the organization's
values, and the conflict resolution process.
19
Office of the Budget Analyst
Section 2.2;
Animal Management & Care
1.1.6 Recognize that the weather at the San Francisco Zoo is at the cooler limit
for keeping many tropical species, without resorting to indoor temperature-
controlled exhibits. New outdoor exhibits should be designed with ample
windbreaks, outdoor shelters, and on-exhibit heat sources. The animal
collection should be carefully selected, as much as possible, for an animal's
ability to acclimate to cooler temperatures, or select species that originate
from cooler climate zones, such as tropical zones at elevation or northern
climate zones.
1.1.7 Ensure that enrichment items are regularly added and changed within the
bison exhibit.
1.1.8 Decide within a short time period whether sea lions and northern bears
(Polar bears and the Kodiak bear) will be part of the Master Plan. If the
seals and northern bears are not part of the long-term plan for the Zoo, the
animals should be relocated to other institutions with better facilities. The
bear grottos should then be removed. If the animals are part of the Master
Plan, the existing facilities should be removed and new state-of-the-art bear
or sea lion exhibits constructed within the time period of Phase II. Ten to
fifteen years is too long to address these concerns.
1.1.9 Ensure that its Exhibits Committee, on a priority basis, review plans for
single specimens currently in the Zoo's animal collection.
1.1.10 Carefully consider each of the ideas presented by Animal Keepers in the
"Animal Keeper Perspectives" section of this audit report and implement
those ideas, were warranted.
1.1.11 Ensure that all Animal Keepers who have not received a performance
evaluation within the past year be provided a performance evaluation as
soon as practicable and annually thereafter.
The Department of Recreation and Park should:
1.1.12 Allocate greater resources to the bison facility. The site itself actually has
exceptional potential, with the cooler climate and large open setting.
1.1.13 Implement the Bison Exhibit minor maintenance and long-term
modification improvements contained in Attachment II to this report
section.
20
Office of the Budget Analyst
Section 1.1:
Animal Management & Care
COSTS/BENEFITS
The recommendations contained in this audit section would significantly improve
animal management and care. The recommendations contained in this audif section
would also require significant additional costs for new, state-of-the-art northern
bear and sea Hon exhibits. However, according to Dr. Parrott, if the decision is made
to keep the animals such costs are necessary for adequate facilities.
Significant benefits would accrue to the Zoo, its management, staff, and Animal
Keepers if the recommendations concerning goal setting, communication, and trust
are implemented.
21
Office of the Budget Analyst
United States
Department of
Agriculture
Animal and
Plant Health
Inspection
Service
Animal Care
Western Region
Attachment I
Ppcre 1 of 2
9580 rflrcron Ave., Suite J
Sacramento, CA 95827
Telephone: (916) 857-6205
Fax: {916} 857-6212
March 3, 1999
Re License No.: 93-C-0003
Stanton W. Jones, Zoo Audit Project Manager
Budget Analyst, 3oard of Supervisors
City and County of San Francisco
1290 Market Street, Suite 1025
San Francisco, CA 94102
Dear Mr. Jones:
Thank you for your letter of February 24, 1999, requesting information on the compliance history of the San Francisco Zoo. Let
me first explain our system of reporting inspection findings.
Noncompliances cited on inspection reports are put into one of four categories. Category I is previously cited items that have
been corrected. Category II is previously cited items that are within a correction deadline established by the inspector.
Category III items are those cited for the first time, and the facility is given a deadline for correcting these items. We take this
approach because we like to start with the assumption that a noncompliance exists because the licensee did not understand the
regulatory requirement. We then explain the requirement and allow the licensee a specified amount of lime to correct the
problem. However, if the problem is not corrected within the deadline, or if the problem continues to recur, we must assume that
the licensee is knowingly violating federal regulations. For example, if a licensee is cited for peeling paint in Building A, we
assume that s/he does not realize peeling paint is a noncompliance, and we cite the problem with a deadline for correction. If we
subsequently find peeling paint again, whether it is in Building A or some other building, we consider it a repeat violation,
because the licensee should now know that peeling paint is a noncompliance, wherever it occurs. These repeated items are
reported as Category IV noncompliances and are the most serious of the violations cited in an inspection report. It is these items
which I researched in the San Francisco Zoo file. (Please note that we only maintain three years of inspection information in the
files.)
Until recently, the zoo was divided into six sites for purposes of inspection. Each site was, in essence, treated as a separate
facility. We have since changed that approach, and single facilities will no longer be subdivided for inspection purposes. This
new approach will probably increase the number of Category IV citations at the zoo, since a Category III noncompliance will
become a repeat violation if a similar noncompliance subsequently occurs anywhere within the entire zoo facility. The most
recent inspection of the zoo, which is not yet in the file, was reported on a single document and, I understand, did contain
Category IV items (repeated maintenance problems). The following is the information I obtained from our files on the zoo:
1 . The zoo received four complete inspections in the period 1996-1998. Site 3 received four additional
inspections, due to public complaints, during this time period, but no Category IV citations occurred on those
reports. With regard to the four complete inspections:
a. Site 1 (primates) received Category IV citations on all four reports, all deaiina with maintenance
problems, plus one Category IV citation for a storage problem in April, 1S96.
b. Site 5 received Category IV citations on two reports, both dealing with maintenance.
c. Sites 2, 3, and 4 each received Category IV citations on only one report Tne site 2 citation was for
drainage; the site 3 citaiicrrwas for fence maintenance; and the site 4 citations were for
maintenance problems and for failure to test water in marine mammal pools as required.
d. Site 5 (ARC and Children's Zoo) was the oniy site with no Category IV citations on reports in our
fiies.
APHIS - Protecting American Agriculture An =sual Cooor.unity Emoloyer
22
Attachment I
Jones - Page 2 of 2 2
2. Since 1992, the zoo has received one official warning "ticket" from this office, five letters of warning, and two
warning statements on inspection reports. (Please note that we began including warning statements on
reports in lieu of warning letters in 1998.)
a. Category IV citations on inspections in December, 1994, and August 1995, resulted in a warning
letter issued in December, 1995, which noted that previous warning letters had been issued in Mav,
1992, and August, 1993, and that an official warning had been issued in June, 1993. All of these '
documents dealt with repeated maintenance problems. (Please note that enforcement letters are
maintained for five years in the nies, so the 1 995 letter is still available, although the 1 994 and 1 995
inspection reports are not)
b. Ancther warning letter was issued in October, 1995, concerning the repeated violations noted on a
September, 1996, inspection (maintenance, drainage, storage).
c. Yet another letter was issued in June, 1 997, concerning a repeated violation on the April, 1 997,
inspection report (fence maintenance).
d. In March, 1998, inspection reports for sites 1 and 5 each contained a warning statement regarding
Category IV repeated maintenance violations.
3. The zoo has responded in writing to challenge many of the inspector's citations. This level of formal
protestation is much higher than is usual with other licensees, most of whom work out their disagreements
with inspectors' citations during the outbriefing process. The formal appeal process is usually reserved only
for those instances in which the inspector and the licensee cannot come to an agreement and is usually
rarely invoked.
a. In December, 1995, the zoo responded to our December, 1995, warning letter, challenging the two
violations (primate facility maintenance and marine mammal facility maintenance) cited in the
warning letter. In response to that challenge, the marine mammal facility maintenance violation
was found to be invalid as a repeated noncompliance (i.e., the first citation of the noncompliance
was valid, but the repeat citation was not).
b. In November, 1996, the zoo responded twice to challenge various violations iisted in our warninc
letter of October, 1996. None of the citations in the warning letter were found to be invalid,
although one Category III violation they questioned (fence maintenance), from the September,
1995, inspection was found to be invalid.
c. In March, 1997, the zoo challenged a February, 1997, inspection report citation from an inspection
performed in response to a public complaint. The inspector's citation was found to be valid.
Hopefully, this summary of the information in our files will assist you in your audit As you requested, I have also enclosed a copy
of our regulations. If you have any questions concerning this letter or the Animal Welfare Act, feel free to contact me at the
address or telephone number above.
Sincerely,
V. Wensley Koch, D.V.M.
Supervisory Animal Care Specialist
Western Region, Animal Care
Enclosure
23
Attachment II
To: Stan Jones
From: Michele
Date: 26 July 19^9
CC: David Robinert
Regard: Maintenance at the Bison Paddock
Bison Exhibit Minor Maintenance
Main Field and Feed Area
• Hay manger/feeder: Some of the 2"x4" slats and the top rail need replacement.
Wood needs to be sealed or repainted.
• Grading: Add substrate and grade the area around the water trough and the feed
pad.
• Remove blackberry bramble from the interior of the feed storage area.
• Install sign posts at regular intervals to accommodate bison information siexis.
• Perimeter fence repairs.
• Re-alienment of all gates so that space between the gates and the around is less
than three inches.
• Install a hose bib in keeper service area, so we can wash the hay manger
West Holding Paddock
• Hay manger/feeder needs replacement or extensive repair.
• Install a hose bib next to the water trough so that it can be more easily serviced.
• Re-string the perimeter hot wire.
Bison Exhibit Long-Term Modifications
• Re-configuration of the holding paddock and main exhibit. Include incorporation of a
cartie chute leading to a restraint device and loading dock. Maintain a bison holding area
separate from the main field.
• Addition of a cattle restraint chute/squeeze for ease of medical procedures.
• A quarantine/isolation paddock that is self contained including a feed area shelter, and
solid perimeter barriers.
• Upgrade perimeter fencing so that it is uniform. The fence should be a double fence with
a 1 2 foot buffer zone between the bison and the public.
• Bison access to shelter/shade at all times regardless of where they are held. Include the
addition of shaded areas, i.e., trees, in the main field paddock.
• Addition of behavioral and environmental enrichment opportunities for the bison
including rocks, stumps, and limbs for rubbing.
• Permanent hay storage, food preparation area and tool storage facility.
• Installation of communication devices, telephone and a radio base station.
• Upgrade access to power for tools and veterinary equipment.
• Addition of wash room and bathroom facilities for the animal care staff.
• Installation of appropriate signage and graphics.
Dan McKenna, at Rsc/Park, is overseeing the renovation of the bison paddock. Mr. McKerma*s
number is 415 831 2745.
Ik
Section 1.1a:
Dr. Parrott's Animal Management Evaluation
Dr. Parrott's Evaluation
REVIEW OF ANIMAL MANAGEMENT AT
THE SAN FRANCISCO ZOO
The purpose of this report is to review the animal management program at the San
Francisco Zoo. In general, animal management covers a wide range of areas, including
sanitation, housing, water quality, nutrition, veterinarian care, curatorial decisions, animal
disposition, and quality of staff. This report will address all of these areas. In August 1998, these
areas were reviewed by an inspection team of zoo professionals, representing the Association of
Zoos and Aquariums, as part of the re-accreditation process for the SF Zoo. A review of the
AZA accreditation narrative report is recommended in association with the results of the findings
in this report.
In addition to a general review of the animal management program and animal care at the
Zoo, this report will address specific questions and issues that relate to animal care and
management. Issues and concerns which were raised in discussions with the USDA, other issues
detailed in an article which appeared in a May 1999 publication of The San Francisco Bay
Guardian ("The Zoo Blues"), discussions with the Board of the SF Zoological Society, and any
concerns regarding management expressed in a survey of the SF zookeepers will be included.
Where appropriate, clear recommendations will be made.
The approach included a review of materials (including, but not limited to, financial
reports, USDA inspection reports, animal keeper questionnaires, AZA accreditation reports,
bond summaries, staff records and correspondence, etc.), interviews, and a tour of the physical
plant. The following individuals were interviewed June 22 - 24:
Judith van Es, Human Resources Director
Ron Bemardi, Keeper (avian)
Karen Raby, Keeper (Children's Zoo)
Jill Andrews, Keeper (primates)
Dave Bocian, Keeper (primates)
Deb Cano, Keeper (carnivores)
Nancy Rumsey, Keeper (koalas)
Antonietta Brocksen, Keeper (avian)
Roger Hoppes, Associate Curator (Children's Zoo)
Michele Rudovsky, Associate Curator (hoofstock, pachyderm)
Eve Lyon, Associate Curator (primates, carnivore)
David Robinett, General Curator
Tony Bila, Human Resources
Freeland Dunker, Senior Staff Veterinarian
David Anderson, Zoo Director
Robert De Liso, Bond Program Manager
Phil Carlton, Golden Gate Park Bison
V. Wensley Koch, DVM, USDA
Michael J. Smith, DVM, USDA
25
Office of the Budget Analyst
Section 1.1a:
Dr. Parrott's Animal Management Evaluation
Paul Jansen, President, SF Zoological Society
John Wortman, General Curator, Denver Zoo
Animal Care
Animal care is best described by reviewing each individual aspect of management, care,
and well-being of the animals at the Zoo. A similar review was conducted by the AZA
accreditation inspection team, and that report should be considered in addition to this report.
Facilities'.
The animal housing and exhibits are clearly a mixture of old and new, demonstrating a
wide range of conditions. The physical plant reflects a Zoo in transition. The newer exhibits are
generally very good, as are the gorilla exhibit, koala exhibit, portions of the Primate Discovery
Center, and the Children's Zoo. Excellent renovations were completed in the PDC, North
American River Otter, Flamingo Lake, Tropical Building, and Warthog Exhibit. The Australian
Walkabout is spacious and reflects the energy and efforts of zoo staff. The existing housing is
generally good. The Avian Conservation Center is an excellent facility. The Lorikeet Exhibit is
well done and equal to any of the walk-through lorikeet exhibits currently existing in the country.
The newest animal exhibit complex, "Puente al Sur," is excellent.
There are a number of animal exhibits that are out-of-date and can only be considered
minimal facilities. Certainly the most glaring deficiencies in housing and exhibit design (and
well-known to all concerned) are the chimpanzees, orangutans, elephants, bears, sea lions,
hippopotamus, giraffe, and siamang. All of these are recognized as minimal facilities by current
Zoo management. Somewhere in-between are the enclosures for the greater cats. Although the
Lion House is a public sentimental favorite, it is clearly dated in concept and design. The animal
holding and exhibit facilities should be considered adequate but minimal. Many of the facilities
overall show a lack of general maintenance. Rust is a major problem with the Sloat Boulevard
location. General maintenance will be covered in greater detail under "USDA Concerns."
The Feline Conservation Center requires special consideration, due to the history and its
mention in the Guardian article. The original intent and design of the FCC was to serve as an off-
exhibit holding, breeding, and conservation center for cats. The original intent and design of the
Feline Conservation Center (FCC) was to serve as an off-exhibit holding, breeding, and
conservation center for cats. The original intent was also to provide new quarters so that the old
string of cat cages could be demolished. In that regard, the FCC is a very good facility and a
tremendous improvement in quality-of-life from the conditions that the animals were in. Later, a
decision was made to allow public viewing of the enclosures as an exhibit. Although it is not
aesthetically a strong exhibit complex for public viewing, it remains a very good facilities for its
original intent (improved possibly by the addition of indoor facilities for tropical cats). The FCC
definitely represents a major improvement from the previous cat cages. In fact, the accreditation
report lists the FCC as an "excellent project."
26
Office of the Budget Analyst
Section 1.1a:
Dr. Parrott's Animal Management Evaluation
The outdated animal enclosures and exhibits are the greatest concern of the general
public. They were the driving force for the success of the bond measure vote and should be
moved to top priority for the bond program.
Recommendations:
1 . The African Savanna project should be the first elements designed and constructed, to
address the needs of the chimpanzee, orangutan, elephant, lion, giraffe, and
rhinoceros.
2. An elephant restraint chute should be acquired as soon as possible, which can be
relocated into the new exhibit, when that is completed. This will address a current
limitation of the existing facilities for African elephant management.
3. The bear grottos and sea lion should be included within the Phase II ($70,000,000)
portion of the Master Plan.
4. The maintenance department should be allocated more time for general facility
maintenance, rather than assignments to new exhibit construction.
Management
A review of animal care at the zoo revealed a professional level of management
throughout the animal management program. The keeper staff appeared conscientious and
professional, as a group. The animal exhibit areas and holding areas are clean and well
maintained, within the limitations of the physical facility. Keepers appear to be well-trained,
qualified, and competent. All areas appeared to be adequately staffed to care for the animals.
However, a common complaint by keepers was that the staffing level was borderline, and
everyone felt pressed to complete the workload. This was also a common complaint of
management. Management is confronted with a large workload, especially with the demands of
growth and fundraising, which put pressure on maintaining day-to-day business. The busy
workload does not appear to be at the expense of the animals. The recent hiring of a Chief
Operating Offer should help upper management.
The veterinary medical program to care for the animals is excellent. The veterinary staff
is excellent and is one of the most significant improvements in animal care since the SF
Zoological Society assumed management of the zoo. The veterinary staff and animal
management appear to have a good working relationship. A review of necropsy records reveals a
mortality report well within the range of a high quality animal program in a zoo with an animal
collection comparable to the size and makeup at the SF Zoo. The necropsies are well
documented and supported by histopathology examinations. There were no indicators of deaths
due to mismanagement in animal care or veterinary care. Strong confidence in the \ eterinary
department among keepers ran throughout the organization. The high quality of veterinary care
and high level of confidence in that care cannot be overstated. It represents a real and measurable
improvement in animal care from the previous zoo management (considered poor at the time and
under investigation) and prior to the SF Zoological Society management of the zoo.
27
Office of the Budget Analyst
Section 1.1a:
Dr. Parrott's Animal Management Evaluation
A random sample review of animal diets indicated that the diets are complete and
professionally designed. All diets were reviewed by a zoo nutritionist three years previous and
are now collaboratively developed with veterinary and curatorial staff. The commissary appeared
clean and foods were high quality. Refrigeration, storage, and food preparation areas appeared
professionally managed.
Water quality for the animals appeared acceptable at all levels. Drinking water sources
appeared very clean. Pools with filtration also appeared clean. Pools without filtration were
drained and refilled daily. The ponds were not clear but are within guidelines for the
environment.
Pest control also appears significantly improved over the past ten years. Past history of
Norway rats at the SF Zoo now appears under greater control with the existing pest control
program. The presence of mice and rats in a zoological environment can never be completely
eliminated, it can only be controlled. The problem of rodents is primarily due to the necessary
practice of feeding wildlife in an outdoor environment where the animals can still access the
food. The exposure of that food makes it vulnerable to rodents. This exposure is controlled
primarily by using fine mesh wiring (where possible) and a vigilant pest control program
(poisoning, trapping, etc.). The rodent problem now appears under control at the SF Zoo.
Animal policies are within the guidelines of the AZA. San Francisco has one of the most
stringent animal surplus policies in the country. The animal acquisition policy appears to be
adhered to, based on the animal collection plan. The euthanasia policy is under the responsibility
of the staff veterinarian. A detailed animal collection plan is in place, covering each species in
the collection. A glaring exception is the lack of a plan for the future of the elephant collection.
(Asian and African). The record system is complete and professionally maintained. The animal
collection is included in the ISIS program.
Quarantine and isolation facilities are lacking, primarily in large hoofstock. However, this
is a common problem with most zoos. Management is aware of this and hold facilities are
included in the Master Plan.
An animal marking system to individually identify animals is in place and is above
average. Animal enrichment was evident in numerous enclosures, to provide activities for the
animals. However, more enrichment would be desirable and several keepers expressed
frustration at a lack of time to devote to animal enrichment activities. The enrichment appeared
to be within the professional norm.
Sociobiological concerns of various species appear to be addressed as much as is
reasonable. Creating and maintaining the proper social mix of any group is always a concern of
all zoos. Many different factors affect the ability to fulfill sociobiological needs. A review of San
Francisco's animal inventory, collection plan, and plan for individual animals demonstrates that
the zoo is aware of the challenge and is addressing it. Single specimen collection holding is
present, but is generally justifiable due to special circumstances on a case-by-case basis.
28
Office of the Budget Analyst
Section 1.1a:
Dr. Parrott's Animal Management Evaluation
The entire keeper training program was not reviewed. However, the keeper staff appeared
well-trained and professional. The recent addition of a highly qualified coordinator in Human
Resources should help facilitate standardization of staff training in the future. The extended use
of the "full time temporary" status appears to create more of a morale problem than an animal
care problem. Ample time should be allowed for the training period as new employees are hired.
A more formalized keeper training program should be in place.
Calle - Elephant Tuberculosis
The management of the Asian elephants at the SF Zoo warrants special mention. This
case was highlighted in the Guardian article.
In 1995, one of the two SF Zoo's Asian elephants died. For the next two years, zoo
management attempted to find a companion for the remaining elephant, "Tinkerbelle." Because
elephants are highly social animals, they should not be kept in a solitary environment. In 1997,
"Calle," an Asian elephant at the Los Angeles Zoo, was relocated to the San Francisco Zoo.
Calle was tested in Los Angeles for tuberculosis with preliminary screening tests and a trunk
wash culture. She was shipped to San Francisco prior to the results of those tests being finalized.
After arrival in San Francisco, the test results subsequently were found to be positive.
Upon review of this case and discussion with zoo management, several important points
emerge. First of all, everyone in management acknowledged that it was a mistake not to wait
until the final test results arrived prior to sending Calle to the San Francisco Zoo. The mistake
was not in deciding to bring Calle to San Francisco; the mistake was not waiting until final test
results were in before she went to San Francisco. Whether this turns out to be a fatal mistake
remains to be seen. Following treatment, Calle now appears to no longer be shedding. The
central issue is not whether Calle becomes an active clinical case, but whether through her
shedding Tinkerbelle contracts the disease. Tinkerbelle may yet live a full life, without
contracting TB or TB ever becoming an issue.
Other points must be considered. There was no report of prior exposure to TB in the LA
herd (this was documented in the record). The LA Zoo was unaware that Calle was shedding. SF
Zoo management had the opportunity to return Calle to Los Angeles. Management decided that
it was in Calle' s best interest to treat her in San Francisco.
The decision to bring Calle to San Francisco prior to final test results was a mistake, but
it was not indicative of general mismanagement, nor does it create a pattern of mismanagement
at the San Francisco Zoo. In fact, it is far more telling about management that, rather than
correcting the mistake simply by sending Calle back to be the problem of the Los Angeles Zoo,
Zoo management decided to rise to the challenge to treat her at considerable cost of time, money,
and energy. Meanwhile, Calle has stopped shedding and is now living with Tinkerbelle.
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Reports
The primary concern of the USDA inspection involves ongoing general maintenance. To
understand the compliance issues, it is helpful to understand the process.
29
Office of the Budget Analyst
Section 1.1a:
Dr. Parrott's Animal Management Evaluation
The USDA is a regulatory agency, not a certifying agency, and is charged with
enforcement of the Animal Welfare Act, through the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
(APHIS). The rules and guidelines are established by Congress. Enforcement is achieved by
routine, unscheduled visits by veterinary inspectors to insure that all sites licensed under the
Animal Welfare Act are compliant with the federal guidelines. Items found noncompliant are
cited and placed in one of four categories. Category I is previously cited items that have been
corrected. Category II is previously cited items that are still within a correction deadline time
frame established by the inspector. Category III items are those cited for the first time, with time
allowed to correct the items. Category IV noncompliances are items that are noncompliant which
have not been corrected within the allowed timeframe. Category IV noncompliant items are the
main issues regarding the SF Zoo.
With this understanding, following is generally how the process actually works. The
veterinary inspector will arrive at the facility unannounced, so that the organization does not
"prepare" for the visit. If the inspector finds a violation, the zoo staff can discuss the nature of
the violation, and then negotiate for a reasonable amount of time to correct the problem. While
some problems are major, most are usually minor housekeeping issues. Minor housekeeping may
be corrected on the spot, such as replacing covers to food storage or the removal of cobwebs.
Other items require time, money, inconvenience, and a return visit inspection.
There are two sides to this process. On the one hand, inspections and minor infractions
can be very irritating because the items can feel like minor "technical" violations which do not
really represent a threat to the health of the animal. But they are violations. On the other hand, it
is important to realize that the minimum standards are so minimal that it is almost embarrassing
(witness animal conditions allowable for circuses). The low standards of animal care are not a
reflection of the USDA; the standards are established by Congress. USDA enforces the
standards. No zoo should be operating at a level in the vicinity of the minimal standards
established by Congress.
The primary San Francisco Zoo non-compliant items relate to deferred maintenance.
They relate to an aging facility subject to a relatively harsh marine environment, a small
maintenance department trying to keep up while developing new, in-house exhibitry (warfhog,
lorikeet), a limitation of funds related to the management contract and limited pre-bond capital
funding. Rust on the wire or rodent droppings do not constitute "inhumane conditions or feces
filled cages." Nor do they mean animals are suffering or sick. They represent a potential for
problems and should be corrected. Complicating this further is the situation in the bison exhibit
at Golden Gate Park. The animals are under the care of the San Francisco Zoo and under the
Zoo's USDA license; the facility is the responsibility of the Recreation and Park Department. If
the Rec and Park Department fails to maintain the facility (rotting fence posts, inadequate "Do
Not Fee" signage), the San Francisco Zoo is cited for non-compliance. Again, the rotting fence
posts and lack of signage do not mean the animals are suffering. These conditions represent a
potential for problems; they are violations and should be corrected. More significant is the non-
compliant item cited for the lack of a shelter for the blackbuck. That the Blackbuck do not use
the shelter is not the issue. That the blackbuck have the choice to use the shelter, and the USDA
clearly points out the violation, is the issue.
30
Office of the Budget Analyst
Section 1.1a:
Dr. Parrott's Animal Management Evaluation
Recommendations:
1. Zoo management needs to develop a better working relationship with the USD A
.APHIS. In my 18 years of experience working with the USDA, I have never known
inspectors to be less than sincere in enforcing guidelines for animal welfare concerns,
nor have they enforced rules with evidence of political motives. Zoo staff should
promptly address non-compliant items and negotiate for the best possible reasonable
length of time for compliance. Zoo staff should not challenge minor findings, and
reserve appeals for the rare major non-compliant items that may, in fact, not threaten
an animal's welfare and may not fairly qualify as non-compliant. Zoo management
has already initiated a better working relationship with the Zoo Director meeting with
USDA representatives in July of 1999.
2. Zoo management should increase the maintenance department to address deferred
maintenance items until maintenance is reasonably caught up. One vehicle to increase
the size of maintenance staff without increasing the operating overhead, is to assign
new maintenance employees strictly to bond-approved repair items, thereby
qualifying all costs for the force-account labor category in the bond program.
Generally, force-account labor is more cost-effective than outside contracting,
remains more focused, and is under direct control of zoo management. Zoo repairs
and renovations are approved items under the bond program.
3. Zoo management should develop a maintenance quality control program to insure
that significant maintenance items are identified prior to USDA inspections. The
USDA should not be a quality control agency.
Staff Morale
Perhaps one of the greatest concerns of this management audit involves the persistent
mixed morale present in the keeper staff. Poor morale has almost been endemic in the staff at the
San Francisco Zoo, dating back at least to the 1960's. Historically, it has been severe at times,
resulting in chronic absenteeism and tension between keeper staff and management.
Morale among the keeper staff has improved significantly since the San Francisco
Zoological Society assumed management of the zoo. Poor morale remains a concern, but appears
now in pockets rather than throughout the organization and does not appear as severe. However,
it is nowhere near where it should be to have a vibrant and energized organization.
In discussions with keepers, attitudes ranged from individuals feeling most positive about
the animals, the recent improvements, and their department, to individuals feeling negative about
the values and direction of the zoo and relations with their supervisors.
Management is well aware of the pockets of animosity and poor morale. An Employment
Assistance Program assessment has been completed for some employees. A consultant for
conflict resolution has been hired to resolve issues. This is clearly a proactive approach to a
major deep-seated problem that predates this Zoo administration. The recent hiring of a new
31
Office of the Budget Analyst
Section 1.1a:
Dr. Parrott's Animal Management Evaluation
Human Resources Director could also be a major step toward identifying the problems and
facilitating solutions.
It should be noted that there appears to be a true disconnect between poor morale and
animal care. Apparently, even in those individuals who are discouraged, the sense of
responsibility toward the animals has insured professional levels of care by the keepers.
Several additional points should be made. There does not appear to be significant
interstaff animosity at the peer level. There appears to be no significant level of animosity
between City keepers and Society keepers. The quality of interstaff relations is essentially on a
personal basis.
After discussions with several keepers, the most important need appears to simply be
better communication between all of the management and the keepers. Those keepers with close
communication and a close working relationship with their supervisor generally had better
morale. It is important to clearly state the values and vision of the organization. It is also
important to establish and enforce consistent standards of performance.
Recommendations:
1. Middle management should take time to work closer with keeper staff, to develop
mutual trust, respect, and understanding.
2. The entire zoo management should participate in regular leadership training, to
cultivate skills necessary to continue to improve staff morale.
3. Continue development of strategic planning, definition of the organization's values,
and the conflict resolution process.
Weather
Perhaps one of the most important considerations for animal management is the
microclimate along Sloat Boulevard and the Great Highway. Why the City of San Francisco
chose this location for the old Fleishackker Zoo is hard to understand. The toll that the weather
(cool, wind, fog, and salt air) takes on the structures is mentioned in the accreditation report, as is
the potential for the weather's affect on the animal's health.
The weather records for the zoo are registered at the Richmond District Station, just south
of the zoo. A summary of average high temperature by month is included in this report. It is
important to note that the average high temperature for any month does not exceed 66 degrees.
Wind chill for this location would drop the temperature 3 to 5 degrees if there is no windbreak.
Zoo staff at all levels were asked if the primates seemed generally comfortable or
uncomfortable in this climate, to see if the clinical picture suggested that these temperatures
might be too low for these animals (this was suggested in the Guardian article). The general
impression of staff is that the animals acclimate to the climate and do well (even those that are
tropical species). Certainly, primates are exhibited in other areas in temperature North American
and voluntarily go outside when temperatures approach freezing. An advantage of this site is that
32
Office of the Budget Analyst
Section 1.1a:
Dr. Parrott's Animal Management Evaluation
the average low temperature in the coldest month is only 45 degrees. It has rarely reached
freezing.
Recommendations:
1 . As master planning progresses, it should be recognized by zoo management that the
weather at the San Francisco Zoo is at the cooler limit for keeping many tropical
species, without resorting to indoor temperature-controlled exhibits. New outdoor
exhibits should be designed with ample windbreaks, outdoor shelters, and on-exhibit
heat sources. The animal collection should be carefully selected, as much as possible,
for an animal's ability to acclimate to cooler temperatures, or select species that
originate from cooler climate zones, such as tropical zones at elevation or northern
climate zones.
Bison Exhibit Golden Gate Park
The bison exhibit in Golden Gate Park presents a special problem for all concerned.
Animal care and veterinary care are the responsibility of the San Francisco Zoo. The enclosure
and facility is the responsibility of the Recreation and Park Department. The animals are
exhibited under the license of the San Francisco Zoo. USDA violations related to the facility
result in citations given to the San Francisco Zoo, though it would be Recreation and Park'
responsibility. A citizens group known as the Watch Bison Committee in Golden Gate Park
monitors the site and advocates for the animals.
A site visit revealed a group of animals which appear to be in very good health. An
animal which lost weight and died of hepatic fibrosis was reviewed by the USDA and cleared
from accusation of neglect. General Care of the animals themselves appears to be good, although
it was difficult to see due to the generally poor condition of the site. A few piles of animal waste
were present which should have been removed. However, the animals did not appear adversely
affected.
The physical site appeared worn and overgrown. Much of the site was overgrown with
weeds, and fencing appeared old and in some cases appeared to be oriented for some previous
function. "Do Not Feed" signage was present but poorly displayed. Plans for new fencing and,
more importantly, restoration of the main field are in place and scheduled for construction. The
general impression is that the SF Recreation and Parks Department does not have much interest
in this site. The Bison Watch Committee volunteers have contributed minor project support and
general maintenance work (weed pulling etc.) but would like to see more support for the facility.
The facility improvements could be achieved at minor cost.
Recommendations:
1. The SF Recreation and Parks Department should allocate greater resources to the
bison facility. The site itself actually has exceptional potential, with the cooler climate
and large open setting.
33
Office of the Budget Analyst
Section 1.1a:
Dr. Parrott's Animal Management Evaluation
2. New fencing should be installed and oriented to maximize the available site,
including areas currently overgrown with weeds or empty paddock. (SF Recreation
and Parks)
3. Signage should be improved for greater visibility and a more professional
presentation. (SF Recreation and Parks)
4. A simple corral and chute system should be installed to allow for safe management of
the animals, including separation of problem animals and providing veterinary care.
(SF Recreation and Parks)
5. Enrichment items should be regularly added and changed within the exhibit (SF Zoo)
Master Plan and Bond Program
The Master Plan and bond program were reviewed to evaluate how effectively they
address animal management concerns. In many respects, the Master Plan appears excellent and
well thought-out. The three zoological planning firms of CLR Design, Jones and Jones, and
Portico are leaders nationwide in the field of zoological planning. Details of the exhibit layout
are currently being developed. Therefore, it is difficult to comment, other than in general terms.
The overall thematic layout of the Master Plan carries an emphasis on animals from the
equatorial zone (African Savanna, Asian Rainforest, South America, Great Ape Forest). As
mentioned earlier, weather at the SF Zoo will be a factor, to insure that the animals selected are
compatible with the Sloat Boulevard location. The animals identified so far are very popular with
the general public and should be very well received. Supplemental heat and wind protection will
be critical to the design.
At this point, zoo management has not decided whether African elephants or Asian
elephants or both will be part of the long term plan. This will need to be decided very soon,
because elephant facilities occupy a central role in the thematic display, and will consume a
significant portion of the space, funding, and energy of the zoo. In addition, the elephant
facilities are especially poor.
Phase II at the zoo will address many of the critical concerns of the USDA and many of
the worst of the San Francisco Zoo exhibits. The most problematic exhibits are addressed in the
bond program, including the chimpanzees, orangutans, African elephants, African lions,
rhinoceros, giraffe, hoofstock holding and quarantine, and numerous repairs and maintenance
relating to animal facility deficiencies. This is a clear sign that zoo management is well aware of
the deficiencies and is actively addressing the problems. Without question, the chimpanzee,
orangutan, and African elephant exhibits are of greatest concern.
A significant omission, which should not be overlooked, is that of the sea lion pool and
bear grottos from the $48 million bond program. The polar bears and Kodiak bear do not appear
on the Master Plan. However, the collection plan indicates maintaining the polar bears, with the
possibility of replacing the Kodiak bear with a grizzly bear. This phase of the bond program is
expected to be completed in approximately seven years. This means that the bears will be in the
existing grottos for ten years, and possibly longer (if future major funding becomes problematic).
The same case could be made for the sea lion and harbor seal exhibits.
34
Office of the Budget Analyst
Section 1.1a:
Dr. Parrott's Animal Management Evaluation
R ecom m en dations:
1 . The sea lion pool and bear grottos should be reprioritized to be included in the S48
million bond program.
2. A decision should be made sooner than later on whether these species will be part of
the Master Plan. If the seals and northern bears are not part of the long-term plan for
the zoo, the animals should be relocated to other institutions with better facilities. The
bear grottos should then be removed. If the animals are part of the Master Plan, the
existing facilities should be removed and new state-of-the-art bear or sea lion exhibits
constructed. Ten to fifteen years is too long to address these concerns.
All of the projects listed in the bond program are critical to the long-term health of the
zoo. The need for improved concessions and a revenue-generating front entrance is magnified by
a management agreement with the City of San Francisco which transferred the burden of
financial viability from the City to the Zoological Society and zoo management. The revenue
urgency and sense of vulnerability permeates the organization. Zoos historically were not
designed to run at a profit. Zoos originally served as a public service. As the financial
responsibilities shift to the SFZS, this strain carries with it the need for revenue from the gate,
concessions, and fundraising. This need for revenue shows up in the programs (Ford Motor
Company, white alligator) and capital improvements (Little Puffer, roller coaster). Complicating
this is the honorable burden of paying staff salaries at the high end of the profession.
Management cannot offer numerous free days, pay well, and de-emphasize commercial
copromotions or concessions at the same time without feeling significant strain. It is important
that the animal welfare issues not be overshadowed by these other zoo needs. The need for
improved animal facilities is very real and was the driving force behind passage of the bond
measure. Improvement in animal exhibits will drive attendance up (and therefore zoo revenue
more than any other project).
Recommendations:
1 . The individual projects in the bond sale remain essentially the same.
2. The priority of projects and time of construction be rearranged so that the new animal
exhibits are constructed first. The education building, zoo support facilities,
administration facilities, and Children's Zoo projects should be postponed. These
projects total over 59,600,000. Postponement of these projects will allow for the
construction phase of the S9,060,000 Africa. Any facilities in the way of construction
should be relocated into temporary modular facilities.
It should be pointed out that delaying Children's Zoo improvements should not be overly
problematic; the Children's Zoo received high marks in the AZA accreditation report, while the
chimp, orangutan, elephant, and giraffe did not. Constructing the animal exhibits first will result
in a major uplift in the spirit and enthusiasm of the staff and community. This will also clearly
demonstrate the existing concerns of upper management for animal welfare.
35
Office of the Budget Analyst
Section 1.1a:
Dr. Parrott's Animal Management Evaluation
Bond Program Fund and Expenditures
A review of the plan for the expenditure of bond funds reveals that expenses are expected to be
approximately as follows:
Fees and Permits
1.5%
Construction Management
8%
Program Management
5%
Design
12%
SFZS Administration
4%
Total
30.5%
City SF Administration
?
This indicates over 30% of bond monies will not go directly to construction, but will be
used in design and project administration. This could easily rise with cost overruns, especially in
architectural services. The allowable limit is variable and established by the bond sponsoring
political board, in this case the City of San Francisco. As a comparison to the 30.5% non-
construction costs, the East Bay Regional Park District imposed a 15% cap on these costs in
Measure AA:
"no more than 15% of grant funds shall be spent on eligible non-construction or
non-acquisition costs such as directly related administration, preparation of plans
and specifications, and appraisals. A fee of not to exceed 1.5% of the bond
proceeds will be paid to EBRPD as an eligible cost to cover the costs of
administering the Park Program. . ."
Oakland's Measure I would not allow the City of Oakland to receive any funds for
administration of the bond program, in projects administered by non-profit organizations. One
hundred percent of the bond monies, with interest, were turned over to the non-profit
organization. The total expenditure for non-construction costs at the Oakland Zoo for Measure I
are approximately:
EBZS Administration 3.5%
Project Management 3.0%
Design 10.0-12.0%
Total 16.5-18.5%
Re com m endation :
1 . No more than 20 to 22% of bond funds should be spent on eligible non-construction
costs, such as directly related administration and the preparation of plans and
specifications. This reduction would result in an additional S3 - 4.8 million for
construction and improvements. This amount alone would allow for funding the bear
grottos.
36
Office of the Budget Analyst
Section 1.1a:
Br. Parrott's Animal Management Evaluation
Privatization
The final question remains: "Has privatization improved animal care at the SF Zoo?"
There are actually two components to this question. First, has the zoo improved under
management of the SF Zoological Society? And, second, were conditions better when the City
ran the zoo? The latter question should be addressed first.
Conditions at the SF Zoo in virtually every category were worse when the City ran the
zoo. Poor morale was a major contributing factor to the previous zoo director leaving on stress
disability. The Zoo Director position remained vacant for a prolonged period of time. The
Primates Discovery Center, which has had so many animal management problems, was built
under previous management. Veterinary care for the animals was poor, under investigation, and
lacked the confidence of the keeper staff. Most indicative of all, conditions were so poor that the
SF Zoo was on the verge of losing its accreditation by the Association of Zoos and Aquariums.
In 1992, the accreditation commission was very concerned about the poor physical plant, the lack
of funding to make major capital improvements, and the borderline funding for operations.
Accreditation was tabled for one year until the major issues of the management contract were
developed. The SF Zoo was accredited in 1993, with the expectation that under the new financial
arrangement of privatization, new funding sources would be developed to resolve the serious
concerns of the commission.
The Zoo and quality of animal care have improved since the SF Zoological Society
assumed management in 1993. The veterinary program has improved dramatically; it was poor
and is now excellent. The veterinarians have an excellent working relationship with the keepers.
The veterinary care for the animals is excellent. Diets have been reviewed, modified, and
improved. Rodent control has improved from poor to good. The keepers at the SF Zoo are
professional, knowledgeable, and caring as a group. Morale remains an issue and is still
problematic in specific areas. But overall, morale has improved. Numerous new exhibits,
facilities, and renovations are very good to excellent. The following list highlights the significant
improvements attributable to the management since the SF Zoological Society took over:
New facilities
Avian Conservation Center
Feline Conservation Center ($2,000,000; replaced string of cat cages)
Australian WalkAbout ($562,000)
Puente al Sur
Lorikeets
Renovations:
Warthog exhibit ($150,000)
Flamingo Lake ($52,000)
River Otter exhibit ($234,000)
Lion Cub exhibit
Aviary/Tropical Building ($162,000)
Numerous major maintenance projects deferred from City management
37
Office of the Budget Analyst
Section 1.1a:
Dr. Parrott's Animal Management Evaluation
Perhaps the most pivotal sign of improvement which will bear fruit in the near future is the
development of substantial funding to address the massive capital needs of the institution. Prior
to David Anderson's arrival, the City had no significant funds earmarked for the capital
improvement program. Today, well over 560,000,000 is in place in both public and private
funding to address the capital needs of the zoo. It is highly unlikely that the public bond portion
would be available today without the advocacy of the San Francisco Zoological Society.
The zoo was subsequently reaccredited in September 1998. The Zoo meets the professional
standards of animal care required by the AZA.
Conclusions
General animal care at the SF Zoo is good. The greatest deficiency in animal care remains the
physical plant. As animal care continues to improve, these priorities should be considered:
1. Replacement of the exhibits and holding facilities for the chimpanzees, orangutans,
elephants, bears and sea lions.
2. Increase the size of the maintenance department with bond-funded force account labor for
increased repairs, maintenance, and minor renovations. This can address the USDA concerns
and general animal welfare/exhibit concerns identified by management and the keeper staff.
3. Prioritize the bond-funded capital improvement projects to construct the animal exhibits of
concern first.
4. Develop a strategic plan for the zoo to clearly articulate the goals, values, standards, and
mission for the entire organization.
5. The Associate Curators and General Curator should work more closely with the keepers to
develop a greater degree of mutual trust, respect, and mission. The existing conflict
resolution program should be taken to completion. Regular leadership training programs
should be available to all of the management.
6. Develop a more cooperative working relationship with the USDA inspection program.
The USDA concerns should be adequately addressed with the availability of bond funding. The
major capital improvements in the Master Plan and a larger, more focused maintenance
department should adequately address the problems.
Current plans for the new zoo do not address concerns regarding the bear or sea lion exhibits.
These should be included. At that point, essentially all of the pressing animal care infrastructure
issues will be addressed.
38
Office of the Budget Analyst
Section 1.1a:
Dr. Parrott's Animal Management Evaluation
Addendum
Weather Summary
Richmond District Station
\verage
Month High Temperature*
January 58
February 60
March 60
April 61
May 61
June 63
July 64
August 65
September 66
October 66
November 63
December 58
3 to 5 degrees cooler - Wind Chill
* (Degrees Fahrenheit)
39
Office of the Budget Analyst
Section 1.2: Animal Acquisitions and Dispositions
♦ The San Francisco Zoo has an excellent animal acquisition and loan
policy. In fact, the Zoo's policy is used as an example in the American
Zoological Association's "Suggestions for Implementation of the AZA
Animal Disposition Guidelines."
♦ The Zoo's acquisition/disposition practices have resulted in a
significant reduction in the number of animals in the Zoo's collection.
Excluding fishes and invertebrates, the number of Zoo animals
decreased from 1,371 in 1972-73 to 895 in 1988-89 to 630 in 1997-98, a
total decrease of 54 percent. The mammal count included in the total
decreased from 558 in 1972-72, to 438 in 1988-89, to 276 in 1997-98, a total
decrease of 51 percent. The General Curator has stated that the Zoo
currently holds the species and specimens that it can care for properly
and that the Zoo's collection of mammal and bird specimens will be
increasing with implementation of Phase II of the Master Plan.
♦ In June of 1997, the Director of the San Francisco Zoo decided to
request that the Asian elephant "Calle" be relocated to the San
Francisco Zoo from the Los Angeles Zoo prior to obtaining the final
results of a general health blood profile and a blood test to screen for
tuberculosis. The decision to request shipment of the elephant prior to
completion of health testing was a mistake; further tests revealed that
Calle had contracted tuberculosis. As of August 1999, the cost of
treating Calle's tubercular condition has been $115,177, not including
staff time. The Los Angeles Zoo has contributed $30,000 toward that
cost.
♦ The Zoo's practices governing animal acquisition, loan, and disposition
actions should be amended to assure that such transactions fully
provide for the well being of the animals. In that regard, we found that:
1. The Zoo does not require AZA facilities requesting Zoo animals to complete
an application form Further, the Zoo does not require non-AZA
members to notify the Zoo of the death or relocation of an animal
that had been previously relocated to the non-AZA member by the
Zoo. These provisions are recommended in the AZA Guidelines.
2. The Zoo's "Animal Disposition Agreement," which is the contract
form used to bind both AZA and non-AZA recipients of Zoo animals,
does not include reference to the AZA's Code of Professional Ethics
nor does the Agreement contain the AZA's recommended language
requiring the acquiring organization not to sell, trade, loan, or
donate the acquired animal to any inhumane research program.
3. The Zoo's Animal Acquisition/Disposition Guidelines contain
evaluation forms with appropriate questions for evaluating
proposed acquisition/disposition actions. However, Zoo management
does not currently complete the evaluation forms in writing.
Office of the Budget Analyst
40
Section 1.2:
Animal Acquisitions and Dispositions
As part of our performance audit of the San Francisco Zoological Gardens, we
examined the Zoo's policies and practices for acquiring and disposing of animals.
Zoos acquire, loan, trade, gift, and sell animals in order to enhance the genetic pool
of species they hold, to improve their exhibits, and for other purposes. The process
of acquiring and disposing of animals must be managed so as to insure that the
animals are treated humanely. For this purpose, the American Zoological
Association has developed guidelines for the disposition of animals for zoos and
aquariums. Accordingly, the San Francisco Zoo has a responsibility to manage its
animal collection in a humane manner and to develop controls that reasonably
insure that recipients of their animal dispositions meet or exceed AZA
requirements.
Another aspect of managing animal acquisitions and dispositions is the need for
population control so as to reduce the incidence of surplus animals. One result of
the process of developing and maintaining an animal collection to further the
recreational, educational, and conservation goals of any Zoo is the generation of
animals that are surplus to the Zoo's particular needs. One of the foremost
challenges of zoos is to minimize surplus animals through such population control
measures as hormonal implants for females and separation of sexes.
The primary risks that must be controlled are disposition policies and practices that
could result in animals being sold at auction, being hunted on enclosed ranches,
being used for human medical research or other non-sanctioned research purposes,
or being given less than adequate care because of a lack of expertise or wanton
disregard. To determine whether the San Francisco Zoological Society has been
meeting its responsibilities in the acquisition and disposition of animals, we
performed the following tasks:
> Interviewed the Curator of Collections, who is responsible for effecting animal
acquisitions and dispositions at the Zoo. Also, interviewed the Animal
Management Department's secretary who maintains the animal acquisition and
disposition records;
> Reviewed the following documents published by the American Zoological Society
(AZA): (1) "Disposition of Wild Animals from Zoological Parks and Aquariums,"
and (2) "Suggestions for Implementation of the AZA Animal Disposition
Guidelines."
> Reviewed the following documents published by the City: (1) San Francisco
Zoological Gardens Acquisition, Loan, and Disposition Policy (Recreation and
Park Commission Resolution No. 15944, adopted February 21, 1991); and (2) San
Francisco Zoological Gardens Animal Acquisition/Disposition Guidelines
(Recreation and Park Commission Resolution No. 16327, adopted March 19,
1992).
41
Office of the Budget Analyst
Section 1.2:
Animal Acquisitions and Dispositions
> Reviewed the series of articles on animal dispositions published by the San Jose
Mercury News in February of 1999;
> Reviewed the Zoo's animal acquisition and disposition files and documents and
performed certain audit tests on those files and documents.
Animal Acquisitions and Dispositions
Each year, the San Francisco Zoo acquires numerous animals through birth, loan,
purchase, or gift and disposes of numerous animals through sale, loan, gift, or the
death of animals. Table 1.2.1 lists such Zoo acquisitions and dispositions for
calendar years 1991 through 1998, and for the first six months of calendar year
1999. The figures include all classes of Zoo animals except invertebrates (The Zoo
began including invertebrate acquisitions in 1996 but not births, deaths, or
dispositions. We have excluded the invertebrate acquisitions in Table 1.2.1).
Table 1.2.1
Animal Acquisitions and Dispositions
1991 - June. 1999
Acqui-
Dispo-
Cumulative
Year
Births
sitions
Deaths
sitions
Net
Net
1999 (6 mos.) 40
83
72
20
31
-210
1998
54
99
85
44
24
-241
1997
37
63
83
61
-44
-265
1996
30
107
80
36
21
-221
1995
18
72
87
64
-61
-242
1994
42
47
75
58
-44
-181
1993
34
39
84
73
-84
-137
1992
93
57
90
104
-44
-53
1991
97
41
77
70
-_9
-9
Total
445
608
733
530
-210
*Large variances shown in bold.
The totals for the eight and one-half year period covered show that the number of
Zoo accessions through births and acquisitions was 1,053 and the number of losses
through deaths and dispositions was 1,263, a difference of 210.
A review of Table 1.2.1 reveals that for certain periods, the variances in the number
of births and acquisitions and deaths and dispositions are greater than the general
averages for those statistics. In response to our request for explanations concerning
those variances, the Zoo's General Curator has provided the following information:
42
Office of the Budget Analyst
Section 1.2:
Animal Acquisitions and Dispositions
• The 40 births for the first six months of calendar year 1999, which yields an
annualized 80 births for all of 1999, is due to the seasonality of breeding. A
straight line relationship does not exist in nature.
• The small number of births (18) in calendar year 1995 was due to a planned
reduction, through birth control, in species housed in older exhibits that
were slated for removal.
• The large number of acquisitions for calendar years 1996, 1998, and the first
six months of 1999 is due to the need to fill new exhibits coming online and
to fulfill the goals as stated in the Zoo's Collection Plan.
• The 72 deaths for the first six months of calendar year 1999, which yields an
annualized 144 deaths for all of 1999, is due to the large number of birds and
barnyard animals that were born in 1991 and 1992 that are reaching the
end of their life expectancy.
• The large number of dispositions in calendar year 1992 (104) was due to the
closure of a number of inadequate exhibits and the need to place the animals
housed in those exhibits in other institutions.
As a result of our overview of the material concerning animal acquisition and
disposition issues, we determined that the risks facing the Zoo in this area are (1)
inadequate policies and procedures concerning animal acquisitions and dispositions,
and (2) lack of adherence to adequate policies and procedures. Therefore, our first
step was to compare the Zoo's animal acquisition and disposition policies and
procedures to the AZA's documents concerning animal acquisitions and dispositions,
"Disposition of Wild Animals from Zoological Parks and Aquariums," and
"Suggestions for Implementation of the AZA Animal Disposition Guidelines."
The AZA "Guidelines" are not strict rules and regulations that must be adhered to
by member zoos and aquariums, but suggested methods for implementing policies
and procedures for enhancing the probability that an institution's animals will
receive humane treatment. However, in the absence of a valid reason not to follow a
particular guideline, we recommend that the Zoo adhere to the AZA Guidelines. The
Zoo's Acquisition, Loan, and Disposition Policy, adopted by the Recreation and Park
Commission in February of 1991, is used as an example in the AZA's "Suggestions
for Implementation of the AZA Animal Disposition Guidelines.
The AZA specifies its animal acquisition and disposition policy guidelines under
subject headings, such as "The Need for Education." We have followed that method
in reporting on the Zoo's adherence to the AZA guidelines."
43
Office of the Budget Analyst
Section 1.2:
Animal Acquisitions and Dispositions
Adherence to AZA Animal Acquisition and Disposition Policy Guidelines
The need for education.
AZA guideline -- It is in the best interest of the animals, staff and public to
make every effort to improve an awareness of surplus animal issues.
Tlie San Francisco Zoo's Acquisition and Loan Policy does not address the
need to improve an awareness of surplus animal issues, nor have we noted
any other Zoo animal acquisition and disposition document that does.
However, we consider the implementation of a policy of public awareness of
surplus animal issues a sensitive subject that should be handled within the
management discretion of the Zoological Society and make note of the issue
here only to bring it to management's attention.
The need for application/ agreement forms.
AZA guideline -- When surplusing specimens to recipients, whether or not
they are AZA member facilities or animal suppliers, institutions should
develop application and agreement forms which require the potential
recipient to adhere to the AZA Code of Professional Ethics, all relevant AZA
and member policies, procedures and guidelines.
The Zoo does not require AZA institutions requesting Zoo animals to
complete an application form. Tlie Zoo does require that non-AZA
institutions complete an "Animal Recipient Profile" form for each type
species applied for. The "Animal Recipient Profile" requires information
concerning the institution's facilities, staffing, sources of financial support,
professional affiliations and memberships, etc.
In the opinion of the Budget Analyst, the Zoo's agreement form adequately
satisfies the AZA guidelines with two exceptions. The agreement does not
include specific language regarding the AZA's Code of Professional Ethics
nor does it include the AZA's recommended wording requiring the
acquiring institution not to sell, trade, loan, or donate to any inhumane
research program. Tliese items should be added to the Zoo's agreement
form.
The Need for Population Control and Disposal Procedures
AZA guidelines describe several ethical and legal methods of population
control or disposal of animals.
44
Office of the Budget Analyst
Section 1.2:
Animal Acquisitions and Dispositions
The Zoo's Animal Acquisition and Disposition Policy adequately covers
population control and disposition options.
Need for documents to be kept on file and policies to be included in
members' written policy on animal dispositions.
AZA guidelines cover documents to be kept of file, readily accessible to
personnel responsible for animal dispositions, and certain policies to be
included in the member's written policy on animal dispositions. In the
opinion of the Budget Analyst, the Zoo's documents conform to the AZA
guidelines with the following three exceptions:.
The AZA policy on Hunting Ranches was not kept on file.
The Zoo's Guidelines do not refer to the AZA Animal Disposition
Guidelines or to the Code of Professional Ethics.
The Zoo does not require non-AZA members to notify the Zoo in the case of
death of an animal or for the purpose of requesting relocation of an
animal. The Zoo's "Animal Disposition Agreement," which is the contract
form for both AZA and non-AZA institutions, requires that the "Recipient
shall inform the San Francisco Zoo of the destination of the subject
animal(s) upon sale, donation, loan, or trade to a subsequent recipient."
We recommend that the Zoo (1) amend its guidelines to specifically refer to
the AZA Animal Disposition Guidelines and to the Code of Professional
Ethics, (2) amend the "Animal Disposition Agreement" to require non-AZA
members to notify the Zoo in the case of the death of an animal and for the
purpose of requesting relocation of an animal, and (3) maintain the AZA
policy on Hunting Ranches on file readily accessible to personnel
responsible for animal dispositions.
Animal Acquisition/Disposition Forms
The Zoo's Animal Acquisition/Disposition Guidelines contain appendices for (1) new
species acquisition evaluation (Appendix I), (2) Animal Acquisition Form for species
already in the collection (Appendix II), and (3) Animal Disposition Form (Appendix
III). The appendices contain sets of well-designed questions for evaluating
acquisition and dispositions. According to the Animal Management Department,
although acquisition and dispositions are evaluated the forms are not completed.
45
Office of the Budget Analyst
Section 1.2:
Animal Acquisitions and Dispositions
We recommend that for each acquisition/disposition the appropriate form be
completed and kept in the record.
As previously stated, the Zoo does not require institutions seeking to acquire Zoo
animals to complete an application form. We recommend that such a form be
developed and used for dispositions to all institutions. Furthermore, we recommend
that the animal application form include the following questions, which are
contained on page three of the Zoo's Animal Acquisition/Disposition Guidelines.
a) Do they have expertise with species being shipped or a similar species? Are
they able to handle species being shipped?
b) Are their facilities adequate for this species including space and amenities for
climatic seasonal changes? Are they able to provide species with proper diet,
social and behavioral conditions?
c) Review recipient's past history with species including reasons for mortality,
propagation successes, birth rate, survival of young, hand-rearing
experience.
Calle - Elephant Tuberculosis
Note: The following evaluation of the Zoo's accepting a Asian elephant named
"Calle" from the Los Angeles Zoo prior to the completion of all health tests has been
excerpted from Dr. Parrott's report in Section 1.1 of this audit report.
"In 1995, one of the two SF Zoo's Asian elephants died. For the next
two years, zoo management attempted to find a companion for the
remaining elephant, "Tinkerbelle." Because elephants are highly social
animals, they should not be kept in a solitary environment. In 1997,
"Calle," an Asian elephant at the Los Angeles Zoo, was relocated to the
San Francisco Zoo. Calle was tested in Los Angeles for tuberculosis
with preliminary screening tests and a trunk wash culture. She was
shipped to San Francisco prior to the results of those tests being
finalized. After arrival in San Francisco, the test results subsequently
were found to be positive.
"Upon review of this case and discussion with zoo management,
several important points emerge. First of all, everyone in management
acknowledged that it was a mistake not to wait until the final test
results arrived prior to sending Calle to the San Francisco Zoo. The
mistake was not in deciding to bring Calle to San Francisco; the
mistake was not waiting until final test results were in before she went
to San Francisco. Whether this turns out to be a fatal mistake remains
46
Office of the Budget Analyst
Section 1.2:
Animal Acquisitions and Dispositions
to be seen. Following treatment, Calle now appears to no longer be
shedding. The central issue is not whether Calle becomes an active
clinical case, but whether through her shedding Tinkerbelle contracts
the disease. Tinkerbelle may yet live a full life, without contracting TB
or TB ever becoming an issue.
"Other points must be considered. There was no report of prior
exposure to TB in the LA herd (this was documented in the record).
The LA Zoo was unaware that Calle was shedding. SF Zoo
management had the opportunity to return Calle to Los Angeles.
Management decided that it was in Calle's best interest to treat her in
San Francisco.
"The decision to bring Calle to San Francisco prior to final test results
was a mistake, but it was not indicative of general mismanagement,
nor does it create a pattern of mismanagement at the San Francisco
Zoo. In fact, it is far more telling about management that, rather than
correcting the mistake simply by sending Calle back to be the problem
of the Los Angeles Zoo, Zoo management decided to rise to the
challenge to treat her at considerable cost of time, money, and energy.
Meanwhile, Calle has stopped shedding and is now living with
Tinkerbelle."
As of August 1999, the cost of treating Calle's tubercular condition has been
$115,177, toward which the Los Angeles Zoo has contributed $30,000. Neither
Animal Keeper nor veterinary staff costs are included in the treatment costs.
Size of the San Francisco Zoo Animal Collection
One complaint recorded in Zoo marketing surveys and voiced by numerous visitors
to the San Francisco Zoo is that there are not enough animals. In order to compare
recent numbers of animals in the San Francisco Zoo with such numbers in past
years, and to compare those numbers with other zoos, we extracted collection counts
from AZA Directories for the years shown in Table 1.2.2 on the following page.
Table 1.2.2 shows for the San Francisco Zoo that the total number of specimens for
classes of zoo animals (e.g., mammals and birds) has decreased over the years as
have the numbers of mammals and birds. When asked to explain why the numbers
have declined over the years, the General Curator has stated that the Zoo currently
holds the species and specimens that it can care for properly and that the Zoo's
collection of mammal and bird specimens will be increasing with implementation of
Phase II of the Master Plan.
47
Office of the Budget Analyst
Section 1.2:
Animal Acquisitions and Dispositions
Table 1.2.2
Size of the San Francisco Zoo Animal Collection
MAMMAL BIRDS REPTILE AMPHIBIA FISHES Invertebrates & Fish
Speci
Speci
Speci
Speci
Specim
Visitors
Bud?et
Species
mens
Species
mens
Species mens
Species
mens
Species
ens
Species
Specimens
San Francisco
1997-98
870.962
S12. 799.626
90
276
73
291
23
43
6
20
5
24
192
630
1996-97
850.000
S12.I25.500
88
2S8
79
291
21
42
4
14
6
43
192
635
1994-95
850.000
$10,000,000
82
345
82
298
24
36
6
16
0
0
194
695
1988-89
1.142.386
S4. 143.941
103
438
ISO
405
23
38
8
14
0
0
284
895
1984-85
752.973
$4, 100. 000
93
402
138
337
I 5
34
7
9
0
0
253
782
1980-81
589.263
S 1 .400.000
108
48 1
160
440
10
—
5
5
0
0
283
948
1972-73
1.315.672
SI. 000.000
128
558
246
803
2
1 0
0
0
0
0
376
1.371
Oakland
1997-98
350.000
S3.000.000
37
1 SO
28
S4
15
24
1
I
0
0
S 1
289
1996-97
350.000
S3.200.000
37
ISO
28
84
15
24
1
1
0
0
81
289
1994-95
350.000
S2, 019.909
36
186
32
152
13
1
1
0
0
82
361
1988-89
0
0
1984-85
1 .000.000
S453.000
49
1 53
52
163
15
58
1
1
8
8
1 17
375
1980-81
800.000
$276,500
28
1 17
26
72
12
49
0
0
0
0
66
238
1972-73
2.000.000
S525.337
1 07
490
1 97
778
89
164
0
0
0
0
393
1 ,432
Denver
1 997-98
1,560,134
$14,908,105
122
65 5
167
510
94
317
24
102
228
1.641
407
1,584
1996-97
1.756.373
S12, 479,656
120
634
155
529
92
338
24
73
214
1.437
391
1.574
1994-95
1.342.136
S7. 546. 266
1 13
564
160
618
75
178
13
52
142
1 15
361
1.412
1988-89
1.148.478
S4.720.000
96
382
167
669
15
37
1 1
23
0
0
289
1.111
1984-85
963.139
$2. 800.000
97
474
227
974
21
35
3
0
0
347
1.486
1980-81
815.680
SI, 800.600
99
484
215
928
30
73
4
16
0
0
348
1,501
1972-73
775.073
S595.000
87
372
185
576
14
36
0
0
0
0
286
984
Seattle
1997-98
1.107.824
$9,469,033
80
296
105
303
47
359
9
64
18
61
24 1
1.022
1996-97
1.000.000
$1 1 .500.000
79
294
1 1 1
309
49
329
9
70
20
75
248
1.002
1994-95
1.000.000
$9,000,000
77
306
120
323
48
262
9
162
16
133
254
1.053
1988-89
941.365
$4,300,000
85
366
114
430
46
178
9
103
1
6
254
1.077
1984-85
735.021
S3.200.000
87
527
148
584
66
250
15
57
3 16
1.418
1980-81
725.000
S 1 .365.000
87
4S8
130
437
72
346
6
63
0
0
295
1.304
1972-73
2,000.000
$525,337
107
490
197
778
89
164
0
0
0
0
393
1,432
We recommend that the Zoo endeavor to increase the number of mammals and
birds in the collection commensurate with being able to properly care for the
animals.
CONCLUSIONS
The Zoo's acquisition/disposition practices have resulted in a significant reduction
in the number of animals in the Zoo's collection. Excluding fishes and invertebrates,
the number of Zoo animals decreased from 1,371 in 1972-73 to 895 in 1988-89 to 630
in 1997-98, a total decrease of 54 percent. The mammal count included in the total
decreased from 558 in 1972-72, to 438 in 1988-89, to 276 in 1997-98, a total decrease
of 51 percent. The General Curator has stated that the Zoo currently holds the
48
Office of the Budget Analyst
Section 1.2:
Animal Acquisitions and Dispositions
species and specimens that it can care for properly and that the Zoo's collection of
mammal and bird specimens will be increasing with implementation of Phase II of
the Master Plan.
In June of 1997, the Director of the San Francisco Zoo decided to request that the
Asian elephaiu "Calle" be relocated to the San Francisco Zoo from the Los Angeles
Zoo prior to obtaining the final results of a general health blood profile and a blood
test to screen for tuberculosis. The decision to request shipment of the elephant
prior to completion of health testing was a mistake; further tests revealed that Calle
had contracted tuberculosis. As of August 1999, the cost of treating Calle 's
tubercular condition has been $115,177, not including staff time. The Los Angeles
Zoo has contributed $30,000 toward that cost.
The Zoo's practices governing animal acquisition, loan, and disposition actions
should be amended to assure that such transactions fully provide for the well being
of the animals. In that regard, we found that:
1. The Zoo does not require AZA facilities requesting Zoo animals to complete an
application form. Further, the Zoo does not require non-AZA members to notify
the Zoo of the death or relocation of an animal that had been previously
relocated to the non-AZA member by the Zoo. These provisions are
recommended in the AZA Guidelines.
2. The Zoo's "Animal Disposition Agreement," which is the contract form used
to bind both AZA and non-AZA recipients of Zoo animals, does not include
reference to the AZA's Code of Professional Ethics nor does the Agreement
contain the AZA's recommended language requiring the acquiring
organization not to sell, trade, loan, or donate the acquired animal to any
inhumane research program.
3. The Zoo's Animal Acquisition/Disposition Guidelines contain evaluation
forms with appropriate questions for evaluating proposed
acquisition/disposition actions. However, Zoo management does not
currently complete the evaluation forms in writing.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The Zoological Society should:
1.2.1 Require all institutions requesting an animal from the San Francisco Zoo to
complete an animal acquisition application form.
49
Office of the Budget Analyst
Section 1.2:
Animal Acquisitions and Dispositions
1.2.2 Amend the "Animal Disposition Agreement" to require that all recipients of
Zoo animals notify the Zoo upon the death of an animal and to require that
non-AZA recipients obtain the Zoo's approval prior to dispositioning the
animal to a subsequent recipient.
1.2.3 Increase the number of mammals and birds in the Zoo's animal collection,
commensurate with providing animal care that meets or exceeds AZA
standards. Zoo management reports that the Zoo intends to increase its
animal collection as facilities are rebuilt and added during implementation of
Phase II of the Master Plan.
COSTS/BENEFITS
Although there are no direct savings that can be attributed to strengthening the
Zoo's animal acquisition and disposition policies and procedures, by doing so, the
Zoo will lessen the possibility of animals being ultimately transferred to an
unsuitable facility, or used for an unsuitable purpose.
As the Zoo implements Phase II of its Master Plan, increasing the number of
animals on exhibit will enhance the experience of Zoo visitors and should ultimately
increase Zoo attendance and revenues.
50
Office of the Budget Analyst
Section 1.3: Capital Projects
♦ In response to Budget Analyst recommendations to increase Phase II
Master Plan funding for increased construction of capital projects, the
Zoological Society has made design changes to the new Administration,
Quarantine, and Holding facilities that will make available an
additional $687,000 for construction of animal exhibits.
♦ The current Phase II budget allocates approximately 4.9 percent of total
construction costs of $48 million to Program Management, which is
being performed by an outside consultant, and 3.9 percent of such costs
to Zoological Society Administration, for a total of approximately 8.8
percent, or $4,215,434. Further, the current Phase II budget allocates
approximately 7.8 percent of total construction costs, or $3,747,052, to
Construction Management, which would be performed by the
Department of Public Works (DPW). Thus, the total budgeted cost for
these functions is currently 16.6 percent of total Phase II funding, or
$7,962,486. We recommend that this combined total of 16.6 percent be
reduced to 10 percent, or $4,800,000, in accordance with attainable
program and construction management cost containment practices and
in accordance with the Zoo Bond Program Report, thereby allowing an
additional $3.16 million to be expended on construction of capital
improvement projects.
♦ The current Phase II budget allocates approximately 13 percent of total
construction costs to Design Fees, based on a combination of a 14
percent factor for specialized animal facilities design and a 12 percent
factor for all other projects. The total amount allocated for Design Fees,
is $6,235,722. We recommend that the combined percentage of 13
percent be reduced to 12 percent, which would produce savings of
$480,000, which can be used for the construction of additional capital
improvement projects.
♦ The current Phase II budget allocates two percent of allowable Phase II
construction costs calculated at $40 million, or $800,000, to the Public
Art Program. The Zoological Society should negotiate with the Art
Commission to reduce the percentage to 1.5 percent, thereby saving
$200,000.
♦ $800,000 of the approximately $4.53 million in cost reductions identified
above should be allocated to increase construction contingency for each
individual project by 2.5 percent, or from 5 percent to 7.5 percent. The
remainder of the $4.53 million in savings, or the approximate amount of
$3.73 million, should be allocated to a Management Reserve Account to
be used for the construction of additional capital improvement projects
to further enhance the Zoo, and to offset increased construction costs
resulting from the two-year delay in issuing Zoo bonds.
51
Office of the Budget Analyst
Section 1.3:
Capital Projects
As part of this management audit, the Budget Analyst reviewed and analyzed the
Zoo's capital project expenditures since the SFZS took over management of the Zoo
in 1993. We also reviewed the proposed capital project expenditures under the Zoo's
$73 million capital improvement project, known as Phase II of the Zoo's Master
Plan. In order to assess the Zoo's past and proposed capital project expenditures,
we:
• Met with the Zoo's Director, Deputy Director, Curator of Planning and Design,
and the Program Manager of the Zoo's $73 million capital project (known as
Phase II of the Zoo's Master Plan);
• Interviewed personnel in the Department of Public Works, Department of
Building Inspection, Planning Department, and Recreation and Park
Department;
• Examined budgeted and actual capital project expenditures for the Zoo for FY
1998-99 and previous four fiscal years;
• Reviewed the Zoo's 1994 Master Plan;
• Examined planning, budget, and contractual documents for the Zoo's Phase II
$73 million capital project; and
• Obtained the services of (1) the Director of the Oakland Zoo and (2) a planning
and construction consultant to evaluate Phase II plans and budgeted
expenditures.
Background
A revised Master Plan for the Zoo was completed in 1994. The plan describes a four-
phase program to convert the Zoo into a world-class facility. It calls for a Zoo which
is divided into geographic regions according to the part of the world that the
animals come from and which contains natural habitats that allow the animals to
roam undisturbed.
Under the terms of the Lease Agreement between the City and the SFZS, the SFZS
is required to meet two goals with respect to fundraising for the Zoo's capital
projects in order to implement the first two phases of the Master Plan. The first is
to raise $10 million from private donations for a "Founder's Fund" within the first
five years of the Agreement. The $10 million was to be allocafed as follows: (a) $5
million for capital improvements (separate from the Phase II total sum of $73
million); (b) $2 million for operating expenses; and (c) $3 million for the SFZS's
Endowment Fund. By June 30, 1996, the SFZS met this goal by raising
approximately $11.5 million toward the Founder's Fund, of which $6.8 million has
52
Office of the Budget Analyst
Section 1.3:
Capital Projects
been expended for capital improvements. These funds were allocated for
improvements and new exhibits under Phase I of the Zoo's revised Master Plan.
The second requirement under the Lease Agreement is for the SFZS to raise $25
million in private donations for Phase II of the Zoo's Master Plan. The $25 million is
to accompany the $48 million in proceeds from a 1997 Zoo General Obligation Bond
measure, for a total of $73 million to be used for Phase II capital improvements at
the Zoo. As of December of 1999, the SFZS has raised approximately $21 million in
cash, written pledges, contingency pledges, and verbal pledges, and reports that its
goal is to raise the full $25 million in private donations by December 31, 2000.
Finally, the Zoo has received a total of $26 million in funds from the sale of Public
Safety Improvement General Obligation Bonds (known as Earthquake Safety
Program II or "ESP II" bonds) that were approved by the City's electorate in 1990.
These monies were earmarked to replace broken and earthquake damaged water
and sewer lines at the Zoo.
Capital Expenditures - 1993 to 1998
In the five-year period since taking over management of the Zoo from the
Recreation and Park Department (RPD), 1993 through 1998, the San Francisco
Zoological Society (SFZS) has expended a total of $8,627,211 on capital projects.
Average annual expenditures over that time were $1,725,000 annually. These
figures include costs for professional services (such as architectural and design
services), and exclude expenditures on the Zoo's Capital Campaign that totaled
$1,286,000 over the same period. Major improvements to the Zoo (over $100,000)
that were completed during this five-year period are shown in Table 1.3.1 on the
following page.
As shown in Table 1.3.1, since 1993, the SFZS has expended $4,507,931 on a total of
12 major projects including improvements to existing exhibits and the opening of
new exhibits and attractions. The SFZS spent an additional $1,827,886 on
miscellaneous smaller capital improvement projects throughout the Zoo. The SFZS
also expended $858,943, or 10 percent of all expenditures on capital projects since
1993, on planning, design, and other expenses related to a proposed South
American Gateway Exhibit which was never built due to lack of support and
funding. A new South American Gateway exhibit is included under the Phase II
project; however, it is a much scaled down version of the original exhibit, with a
total cost of $680,000 budgeted in Phase II.
53
Office of the Budget Analyst
Section 1.3:
Capital Projects
Table 1.3.1
Zoo Capital Projects
FY 1993-94 - FY 1997-98
Froject
Cost
Fiscal Year
Completed
Completed Major Projects (over $100,000)
Otter Exhibit
Australian WalkAbout Exhibit
Feline Conservation Center
Warthog Exhibit
Demolition of Monkey Island and Cat Cage String
White Alligator Exhibit
Children's Zoo Renovation
Elephant Exhibit Renovation
Lion Cub Exhibit
Lorikeet Exhibit
Re-meshing of Primate Discovery Center
Little Puffer Train
$ 234,736 1993-94
561,987 1994-95
2,055,283 1995-96
105,481 1995-96
171,508 1995-96
162,197 1995-96
148,216 1996-97
113,575 1996-97
296,478 1996-97
410,016 1997-98
248,454 1997-98
112.737 1997-98
Subtotal $4,507,931
Other Expenditures
South American Gateway Exhibit (exhibit was not built,
majority of expenditures were for planning, design and
architectural fees)
Support Facilities
Computer System
Phase II Planning and Related Fees
Miscellaneous Capital Expenditures
$858,943
108,017
309,530
902,167
1.827.886
Total $8,627,211
Source: SFZS Final Trial Balance Sheets, by Program, July 1993 to June 1998.
Over this period, the Zoo also received $26 million in Public Safety Improvement
General Obligation Bonds (known as Earthquake Safety Program II or "ESP II"
bonds), approved by the City's electorate in 1990. These bond monies were used for
replacing and upgrading the Zoo's underground utility systems including the Zoo's
sewer, water, gas, and electrical systems. As a mitigation measure, the work also
included the construction of an Avian Conservation Center, a holding and breeding
center for endangered birds. The vast majority of the Zoo's ESP II project was
completed by early summer of 1999.
54
Office of the Budget Analyst
Section 1.3:
Capital Projects
Phase II Capital Projects
In June of 1997, San Francisco voters approved a ballot measure to issue $48
million in General Obligation Bonds in order to modernize or build new Zoo
facilities. In turn, the SFZS pledged to raise a minimum of $25 million in private
donations, bringing the total to $73 million to renovate the Zoo. The $73 million will
be used to renovate and develop the western portion of the Zoo, known as Phase II
of the Zoo's Master Plan.
Phase II includes several new major exhibit areas, improvements and expansion of
the Children's Zoo, improvements to other existing exhibits and the construction of
a new entryway, parking lot, and support buildings. As of August of 1999, the
current budgeted costs for Phase II, by major program component, are as shown in
Table 1.3.2 on the following page. Table 1.3.2 shows total planned expenditures of
$76,390,000, which is $3,390,000 more than the original Phase II Program cost. The
Zoological Society plans to contribute the additional $3,390,000 through their
Capital Campaign fundraising.
After passage of the Zoo bond measure, the first stages of Phase II construction
were originally planned to take place in the fall of 1998. However, due to a court
challenge concerning the election, sale of the bonds was not legally permitted until
the dispute was resolved in the spring of 1999. In the interim, the SFZS used a
portion of its privately raised funds and a $500,000 loan from the Recreation and
Park Department to proceed with planning and initial designs for Phase II. After a
two year delay, in June of 1999, the first issuance of $16.9 million of the $48 million
General Obligation Bonds were sold. The $16.9 million is allocated to fund design
and construction of the Zoo's support and administrative facilities in addition to
design of the new entry plaza, parking lot, the first section of Zoo Street,
Madagascar exhibit and Africa exhibit. According to the Phase II Program
Manager, to date, approximately $8.1 million has been expended or accrued on
Phase II projects.
55
Office of the Budget Analyst
Section 1.3:
Capital Projects
Table 1.3.2
Zoo Master Plan, Phase II
Budgeted Cost by Major Program Component
Phase II Project
Budgeted
Cost
Al and Special Projects - Includes recently completed exhibits (Lorikeets, Puente al
Sur, Lorikeet Exhibit, and Little Puffer Train) as well as a yet to be determined small to
mid-size exhibit slated to open in 2000.
S 1,850.000
Facility Consolidation - Building or rebuilding of support facilities including a
warehouse, administration offices. Education Center, and Animal Resource Center.
10,5S0,000
Entry & Zoo Street - A new parking lot and main entrance will be located along the
Great Highway, western edge, of the Zoo which will lead to a main pedestrian walkway.
The walkway will connect with trail loops to the major exhibit areas and will be lined
with visitor services facilities including food, gifts, rentals, information kiosks, and
restroom facilities.
13,180,000
Zoo Street 2 - The second phase of the new entry and new Zoo Street.
1,120.000
Quarantine & Holding - Construction of a new Zoo animal quarantine and holding
facility.
3,390,000
Madagascar - Eight acres, including renovation of the existing Primate Discovery
Center, which will display a forested lemur exhibit, reptiles, and other species and fauna
of Madagascar to showcase the specific projects and conservation efforts being carried
out by the Zoo in Madagascar.
3,870,000
Children's Zoo - The existing Children's Zoo will include interactive exhibits focused on
North American animals renovated to include a second contact yard and a meerkat and
prairie dog exhibit..
2,650,000
Children's Zoo 2 - Second stage expansion of the Children's Zoo described above.
520,000
Africa! - A savanna area connected to the Savanna B area by an animal walkway to
allow for rotation of animals through the exhibits. The exhibit will be designed to house
giraffe, lions, zebra, gazelle, ostrich, and crowned crane.
9,200,000
Great Ape Forest - Large, grassy meadow areas, trees, shrubs, vines, climbing areas,
and stream to display chimpanzees and orangutans.
S, 190,000
Savanna B/Grand Panorama - Savanna B will consist of savanna landscape offering
panoramic views of mixed animal habitats. The area is planned to house elephants,
rhinos, and other animals. Grand Panorama is 8.5 acres of a multi-species viewing area
(animals are separated by dry moats and waterways). It will house animals from Africa
and Savanna B.
8,230,000
South American Gateway - Several habitats interconnected by pathways containing a
seasonal forest, riverbanks with underwater viewpoints and walk-through aviary.
Hixnibit will display animals native to South America.
680,000
Subtotal
$63,460,000
Public Art Program
800.000
Repair and Replacement Projects - Repair and replacement of existing facilities and
exhibits.
2,810,000
Completed Projects - Various new exhibits and renovations completed since 1993.
500,000
Other Expenses - Includes funds for capital campaign, bond issuance costs, interest
expenses, and other miscellaneous expenditures.
5,530,000
Program Reserve
3.290.000
TOTAL
$76,390,000
Office of the Budget Analyst
56
Section 1.3:
Capital Projects
Sequencing of Phase II Capital Projects
The complete Phase II project is spread out over a seven-year period, with the final
component to be completed by the close of 2004. According to the SFZS, Phase II
construction will take place in stages in order to minimize disruption of normal
operations at the Zoo and impact on the animals. New exhibits and attractions are
sequenced so that a new exhibit opens each spring in order to maximize annual
attendance, which peaks during the summer months. The table below shows the
currently anticipated Phase II project sequencing and the projected completion
dates for each segment.
Project
Anticipated
Completion
Date
Animal Resources Center
May 2000
Zoo Support Complex
Dec 2000
Education Building
Aug 2000
Administration Campus
Jan 2001
Quarantine & Holding
May 2001
Children's Zoo
May 2001
Parking Lot
Jun 2001
Hearst Plaza (Carousel, Cafe, 50% Zoo St.)
Jun 2001
Carousel (mechanical & electrical renovation)
Jun 2001
Primate Discovery Center/Madagascar
Jul 2001
Entry Plaza (remaining 50% of Zoo St.)
Aug 2001
Pachyderm Bldg.
Feb 2002
Zoo Street 2
Feb 2002
Africa!
Apr 2002
Great Ape Forest
Oct 2002
Savanna B
Oct 2003
Animal Walk
Apr 2004
Grand Panorama
Apr 2004
Children's Zoo 2
May 2004
South American Gatewav
Oct 2004
Assessment of Phase II Capital Projects
As described in the Facilities Maintenance (Section 6) section of this report,
inspectors from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) have cited the
Zoo for numerous ongoing violations. The majority of these violations relate to the
condition of the Zoo's animal enclosures. As a part of this audit, we obtained the
services of the Director of the Oakland Zoo, Dr. Joel Parrott, who included an
assessment of the Phase II program's effectiveness in addressing such animal
welfare concerns in his review.
57
Office of the Budget Analyst
Section 1.3:
Capital Projects
In Dr. Parrott's assessment, all of the projects listed in the Phase II program are
critical to the long-term health of the Zoo. The SFZS is under pressure to generate
greater revenues to support the Zoo's operating expenses. Therefore, approximately
$11.5 million of the $73 million Phase II program, or approximately 15.8 percent, is
allocated to revenue-generating concessions, such as the new parking lot, entrance,
and Zoo Street facilities. However, Dr. Parrott notes that it is important that the
animal welfare issues not be overshadowed by these other Zoo needs. The need for
improved animal facilities is very real and was the driving force behind passage of
the $48 million bond measure, according to Dr. Parrott.
According to Dr. Parrott, the Phase II plan will address many of the critical animal
welfare concerns of the USDA and address the majority of the worst of the Zoo's
exhibits. The most problematic exhibits are addressed in the Phase II program,
including the chimpanzees, orangutans, African elephants, African lions,
rhinoceros, giraffe, hoofstock holding and quarantine, and numerous repairs and
maintenance relating to animal facilities deficiencies. However, Dr. Parrott notes
that improvement in animal exhibits will drive attendance up (and therefore Zoo
revenue) more than any other project and that a significant omission under the
Phase II program is that of the bear grottos and sea lion pool.
The polar bears and Kodiak bear currently in the Zoo's animal collection do not
appear on the Zoo's Master Plan. However the animal collection plan indicates
maintaining the polar bears, with the possibility of replacing the Kodiak bear with a
grizzly bear. This portion of the Phase II program is scheduled to be completed in
approximately seven years. This means that the bears will be in the existing grottos
for ten years and possibly longer (if future funding becomes problematic). The same
scenario applies to the sea lion and harbor seal exhibits.
The SFZS advises that a total of $600,000 to $700,000 will be expended on
improvements to, but not replacement of, the existing bear grottos during Phase II.
Renovations include replacement of some of the concrete in the enclosures with soft
materials, the addition of enrichment devices, and repairs to roofs and interior
doors. With regard to the sea lion exhibit, the SFZS reports that no monies are
currently earmarked for this exhibit, however it is exploring options for improving
conditions for the animals and including them under the Phase II program. These
options include building a new exhibit or renovating the existing exhibit. However,
Dr. Parrott's recommendation is to replace the existing bear grottos and sea lion
exhibit, or to relocate the animals to zoos with adequate facilities.
After a copy of Dr. Parrott's report was provided to the SFZS, the SFZS informed us
that by making cost saving changes to the new Administration, Quarantine and
Holding facilities, an additional $687,000 will become available for expenditure on
animal exhibits.
58
Office of the Budget Analyst
Section 1.3:
Capital Projects
Phase II Capital Project Expenditures
The breakdown of the expenditure of bond funds for the major Phase II exhibit
areas reveals that non-construction expenses as a percentage of construction
expenses are expected to be approximately as follows:
Phase II Program Management Review
As a part of our review of the planning, implementation, and management of Phase
II, the Budget Analyst obtained the services of Mr. Jason Yuen, an architect and
planning and construction consultant. Mr. Yuen is currently Chairman, Master
Plan Programs Advisory Board, for the San Francisco Airport's $2.4 billion
expansion program. Mr. Yuen's consulting experience includes that as Chairman,
Value Engineering Panel, for the Toronto International Airport's $2 billion
expansion program, Peer Review Consultant for the Miami International Airport's
$3.7 billion expansion, and Expert for the Commission of Inquiry on the New Hong
International Airport, which was convened to determine the causes and
responsibilities for the chaotic opening of that US $12 billion new airport. Mr. Yuen
was San Francisco International Airport's Chief Airport Architect from 1968 to 1979
and Director of Planning and Construction from 1979 to 1992. Finalfy, Mr. Yuen
was retained by the Zoological Society in 1970 as an independent architect to design
the reconstruction of the Children's Zoo at the San Francisco Zoological Gardens.
The following analysis of the Phase II implementation is the responsibility of the
Budget Analyst. However, Mr. Yuen provided the great majority of the information
contained in this analysis.
Program Construction Budget
Market conditions for construction work vary depending of the specific type of
construction being performed. Current market conditions in the San Francisco Bay
Area, in gensral, are driving construction costs to high levels. Although the
proposed budget has taken current abnormal market conditions into account, it is
not clear from the budget documents what portion of the cost forecasts are
attributable to such market conditions.
Construction Management
Program Management
Design
SFZS Administration
Total
30.0%
8.0%
5.0%
13.0%
4.0%
Office of the Budget Analyst
59
Section 1.3:
Capital Projects
Since market conditions will vary over the duration of this five-year program, a
separate cost factor for market conditions should be identified and updated as
conditions change. The Phase II Program Manager is knowledgeable about the
current market conditions impacting on the cost forecasts of the individual projects.
This separation for market condition adjustments is also helpful in comparing the
program's soft cost budget with other similar programs. Since the soft cost budget is
presented as a percentage of the construction budget, a more accurate evaluation of
the soft costs should be based on construction costs in a normal marketplace, not a
temporarily inflated one. Although both costs are impacted by supply and demand,
construction costs are much more sensitive to the marketplace than soft costs
because 100 percent of the construction cost is derived from competitive bidding.
Soft costs, on the other hand, are based mostly on salaries of existing employees and
office overhead of professional services firms, which do not fluctuate as greatly as
bid prices for construction work.
The current construction budget includes a 5 percent construction contingency, plus
a $3.29-million Program Reserve. These may not be sufficient. As the program
proceeds, it is likely that additional unforeseen work will be required to
accommodate site conditions, market conditions, misjudgment in planning, errors
and omissions in design, contractors' claims, and the changing needs of the Zoo.
Savings from the Public Art Program (see below) and Program
Management/Administration (see below, also) could be applied to an enhanced
Management Reserve Account.
Construction contingency should be increased from 5 percent to 7.5 percent for
individual projects, an increase of approximately $800,000, and the Program
Reserve should be increased from $3.29 million to $5 million, an increase of
approximately $1.7 million, for a total increase of approximately $2.5 million. The
$5 million should be set aside to establish a Management Reserve Account. The
funds in the Management Reserve Account can be transferred to projects only with
the approval of the Board of Directors of the San Francisco Zoological Society as
needs arise. Any Management Reserve funds remaining at the completion of the
program can be used for additional projects to further enhance the Zoo.
The current program budget also includes an $800,000 allowance (2 percent of $40-
million in construction costs) for the Public Art Program. This allowance appears to
exceed the requirements of Section 3.19 of the City's Administrative Code. The 2
percent set aside is required for buildings and aboveground structures only. The
Code specifically exempts "landscape renovation projects" and "modifications to
existing parks." The Code also sets forth a procedure in which the Society's Board
may seek a lower percentage.
60
Office of the Budget Analyst
Section 1.3:
Capital Projects
The Public Art Program budget should be recalculated based on costs for buildings
and structures only, excluding all costs exempted by Section 3.19(d) of the
Administrative Code. The Zoological Society should negotiate with the Art
Commission to reduce the 2 percent Art Program to 1.5 percent. Reasons for the
lower percentage are as follows: 1) there is a critical shortage of funds for
construction; 2) in a zoo, the exhibition of animals takes precedence over the
exhibition of art; and 3) in the past, the Art Commission had accepted 1.5 percent
for major construction programs. Potential savings are $200,000.
The current construction budget shows $150,000 for design fees for the .Art
Program. This is not necessary. Under the City Charter, the Art Commission is the
only City agency that can administer the Public Art Program. Therefore, the entire
Public Art Program budget needs to be transferred to the Art Commission. The Art
Commission will manage the entire procurement process, including the payment of
design fees to the artists. Project designers retained by the Zoological Society should
not charge fees for the Public Art Program.
Soft Costs
We define "soft costs," also known as "non-construction costs," as costs for design
(architect and engineer fees), construction management, and overall program
management and administration. By trade or profession, "soft costs" are costs
allocated to designers, construction managers, program managers, and the in-house
team that monitors the approved program. "Soft costs" do not include costs for
master planning, environmental studies, site analyses, fund acquisition, or other
preparatory work that is required for the implementation of the program. Other
non-construction costs, such as permit fees, topographical surveys, and construction
material testing, should be included in the budget for individual projects and not
included as "soft costs."
The current budget projection for soft costs is 30 percent of the construction cost.
When compared with other major and complex construction programs, this appears
to be excessive. For example, the soft costs for the current $2.4-billion expansion
program at the San Francisco International Airport are approximately 25 percent
(the program is more complex than the Zoo project; the program also experienced
"waste" caused by delays). Soft costs for the existing International and South
Terminals totaled approximately 15 percent. According to Oakland Zoo Director Dr.
Joel Parrott, the Oakland Zoo's recent capital improvement program had a soft cost
budget of 16.5-18.5 percent.
Our evaluation of the S. F. Zoo's proposed soft costs takes into consideration several
factors, as follows:
Office of the Budget Analyst
61
Section 1.3:
Capital Projects
1. Due to the lack of funding, the program, was delayed for two years. This
delay, in turn, caused a re-start of the program and necessitated discarding
outdated schedules, cost estimates, phasing schemes, and other plans. The
increased costs due to this re-start have not been identified but are included
as a part of the overall proposed budget.
2. The design fees are higher than those for most construction projects due to
the limited number of qualified firms with expertise in animal exhibition
facilities. The fact that non-local design firms are used also contributes to the
high cost.
3. Most individual projects in the Zoo Master Plan Program are phased to take
place sequentially in loose groups due to operational requirements. Such a
program requires project coordination at the program level. However, the
proposed budget for program management and administration (9 percent of
construction) appears to be excessive. The latest Organization Matrix shows
a Program Manager, two project managers, one clerk, and as-needed
personnel for scheduling, estimating, and other technical support. Given the
nature of the program, the size of this program management group appears
to be reasonable. What remains to be seen is the justification for the balance
of the $4.2 million in overhead administrative costs.
The proposed costs for program management and Zoological Society administration
total more than $4.2 million, or 9 percent of the $48.6 million construction costs.
This is on top of another 8 percent for construction management of individual
projects. The administrative overhead of $4.2 million over a 5-year program period
would average $840,000 per year. This amounts to 10,000 staff-hours per year at
$84 per hour, or approximately five high- salaried employees working eight hours a
day everyday for the entire duration of the program — just for administrative work
at the programmatic level.
As for project construction management, the grouping of projects as delineated in
the phasing plans should generate savings due to the economics of increased
productivity for the field staff (e.g., an inspector can monitor the contractors' work
for several projects at the same time). With this in mind, the proposed 8 percent
construction management fee is considerably higher than the traditional 5 percent
for most projects. Regarding "soft costs," we make the following recommendations:
• Identify and separate (as a new line item) the wasted expenditures for re-
starting the program due to the lack of funding for two years. Although these
wasted expenditures are components of the program's overall cost, they
should not be considered when judging the reasonableness of soft costs for
implementing the projects.
62
Office of the Budget Analyst
Section 1.3:
Capital Projects
• Make every effort to cap the design fees at a composite rate of 12 percent for
specialized animal facilities work, and for all other projects. Potential savings
if these percentages are realized are $480,000.
• Reduce program management and administration costs from 9 percent to 5
percent of the construction costs. Since program management and owner's
administration are somewhat commingled, where to draw the line dividing
the two depends on the definition of the terms, not on what is contracted out
and what is performed in-house (as currently shown in the budget). Potential
savings are $1.8 million.
• Identify and separate non-construction costs such as surveys and material
testing for individual projects so that the budget for program management
and administration reflects design and engineering fees, managerial
expenses, and office overhead only.
• Negotiate with the Department of Public Works to reduce the construction
management budget from 8 percent to 5 percent of the construction value,
and explore the feasibility of consolidating projects for further reduction.
Potential savings are $1.4 million.
The recommended reductions for Program Management, Zoological Society
Administration, and Construction Management from approximately 16.6 percent to
10 percent would reduce those "soft cost" allocations to the 10 percent allotted for
such costs in the San Francisco Zoo Bond Program Report. We have attached the
"Description of Cost Breakdown" from the Bond Program Report to this audit
section as Exhibit 1.3.1.
The above recommendations should set the target for soft costs at 22 percent of an
inflated construction budget. Since the current market conditions increase
construction costs by perhaps as much as 10 percent, these recommendations
amount to a soft cost budget of 24.2 percent of "normal" construction costs. In view
of the extremely tight overall budget, the Zoological Society needs to establish
challenging constraints for all expenditures at the commencement of the program. If
justifiable as the program proceeds, the Zoological Society can modify the soft cost
budget as necessary, transferring funds from the Management Reserve Account.
Management Oversight Issues
To successfully complete the program within a budget that includes the above
recommendations, the Zoological Society needs to structure the management
organization in such a way as to assure cost effectiveness in the project team's
performance. Presently, the Zoological Society has adopted a turnkey approach to
program management and implementation, with an oversight committee consisting
of members appointed by the Zoological Society's Board. The committee's
Office of the Budget Analyst
63
Section 1.3:
Capital Projects
membership includes principals of major engineering and construction firms. These
members have extensive knowledge and experience in construction, design, and
management. However, since the Zoological Society depends on this committee for
technical monitoring and oversight, it is crucial that the committee members
exercise independent judgment and express contrary viewpoints, when appropriate.
Good management calls for trust and delegation of responsibilities. However, for a
large public construction project, a mechanism should be established for checks and
balances, especially on fiscal matters. A second and truly independent opinion on
critical issues can go a long ways in helping the Zoo Director and the Zoological
Society's Board of Directors make sound decisions.
Using a part of the administrative budget, the Zoological Society should appoint an
in-house Program Administrator with construction management expertise to
oversee the performance of the consultants. In particular, the Program
Administrator should review the Program Manager's requests for funding and
approve the Program Manager's invoices. The Program Administrator should have
the construction experience, the technical knowledge, the personality of a prudent
naysayer, and the authority to question and challenge all expenditures and
proposed expenditures on behalf of the Zoological Society. The function of Program
Administrator could possibly be performed adequately on a part-time basis.
CONCLUSIONS
The San Francisco Zoological Society's Phase II Master Plan Program is an
ambitious undertaking with a tight budget. However, if the Zoological Society can
establish and maintain an efficient, cost-conscious management team, there are
opportunities for reducing the proposed soft costs budget significantly. Any savings
in soft costs would result in more funding for a better Zoo for San Francisco.
In response to Budget Analyst recommendations to increase Phase II Master Plan
funding for increased construction of capital projects, the Zoological Society has
made design changes to the new Administration, Quarantine, and Holding facilities
that will make available an additional $687,000 for construction of animal exhibits.
The current Phase II budget allocates approximately 4.9 percent of total
construction costs of $48 million to Program Management, which is being performed
by an outside consultant, and 3.9 percent of such costs to Zoological Society
Administration, for a total of approximately 8.8 percent, or $4,215,434. Further, the
current Phase II budget allocates approximately 7.8 percent of total construction
costs, or $3,747,052, to Construction Management, which would be performed by
the Department of Public Works (DPW). Thus, the total budgeted cost for these
functions is currently 16.6 percent of total Phase II funding, or $7,962,486. We
64
Office of the Budget Analyst
Section 1.3:
Capital Projects
recommend that this combined total of 16.6 percent be reduced to 10 percent, or
$4,800,000, in accordance with attainable program and construction management
cost containment practices and in accordance with the Zoo Bond Program Report,
thereby allowing an additional $3.16 million to be expended on construction of
capital improvement projects.
The current Phase II budget allocates approximately 13 percent of total
construction costs to Design Fees, based on a combination of a 14 percent factor for
specialized animal facilities design and a 12 percent factor for all other projects. The
total amount allocated for Design Fees, is $6,235,722. We recommend that the
combined percentage of 13 percent be reduced to 12 percent, which would produce
savings of $480,000. These savings can be used for construction of additional capital
improvement projects.
The current Phase II budget allocates two percent of allowable Phase II
construction costs calculated at $40 million, or $800,000, to the Public Art Program.
The Zoological Society should negotiate with the Art Commission to reduce the
percentage to 1.5 percent, thereby saving $200,000.
$800,000 of the approximately $4.53 million in cost reductions identified above
should be allocated to increase construction contingency for each individual project
by 2.5 percent, or from 5 percent to 7.5 percent. The remainder of the $4.53 million
in savings, or the approximate amount of $3.73 million, should be allocated to a
Management Reserve Account to be used for the construction of additional capital
improvement projects to further enhance the Zoo, and to offset increased
construction costs resulting from the two-year delay in issuing Zoo bonds.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The Zoological Society should:
1.3.1 Implement changes to the, Warehouse, Quarantine, and Holding facility
construction plans thereby producing cost savings of $687,000.
1.3.2 Reduce "soft costs" for program management and Zoological Society
administration from 8.8 percent of construction costs to five percent of
construction costs, thereby saving approximately $1.82 million.
1.3.3 Reduce DPW construction management costs from 7.8 percent of construction
costs to five percent of construction costs, thereby saving approximately $1.34
million.
1.3.4 Reduce design fee costs from 13 percent of construction costs to 12 percent of
construction costs, thereby saving approximately $480,000.
65
Office of the Budget Analyst
Section 1.3:
Capital Projects
1.3.5 Negotiate with the Art Commission to reduce Public Art Program fees from
two percent to 1.5 percent, thereby saving $200,000.
1.3.6 Allocate $800,000 of the approximately $4.53 million in cost reductions
identified above to increase the construction contingency for each individual
project by 2.5 percent, or from five percent to 7.5 percent.
1.3.7 Allocate the remaining $3.73 million in cost reductions to the Management
Reserve Account for further allocation to Phase II construction projects.
1.3.8 Develop a separate cost factor for market conditions and update it over the
duration of the program.
1.3.9 Identify and separate as a new line item in the Phase II Program the wasted
expenditures for re-starting the Program. Although these wasted
expenditures are components of the Program's overall cost, they should not be
included when evaluating the reasonableness of soft costs for implementing
the projects.
1.3.10 Appoint an in-house Program Administrator with construction management
expertise to oversee the work of the consultants. The function could possibly
be adequately performed on a part-time basis.
COSTS/BENEFITS
Potential cost savings from implementing the foregoing recommendations are
approximately $4.53 million, which is approximately 9.4 percent of the $48 million
construction budget. Such savings can be used for construction of additional capital
project improvements at the Zoo.
66
Office of the Budget Analyst
Exhibit 1.3.
San Francisco Zoo
Bond Program Report
Appendix
DESCRIPTION OF COST BREAKDOWN
The derailed cos: breakdown is presenied by project. Actual project costs were
lined as follows:
Construction cost is the estimated cost to construe: the project prosram based on
conceptual schematics.
Design fee is calculated at 15% of the construction estimate and includes a Project
Manager during design phases. This cost is included in Project Controls.
Fees. Permits, and An Commission are calculated at 1.5% for the Department of
Building Inspection fees and permits and at 2% for the An Commission. Portions of these
fees are included in Construction Costs and in Project Controls.
Construction administration is calculated at 10% of the construction estimate and
includes a full-time Project Manager at the Zoo and DPW. This cos: is included in Project
Controls.
Technical Services and Construction Contingency are calculated at 10% of the
construction estimate. Portions of these costs are included in Construction Costs and in
Project Controls.
Cost escalation is estimated at 4.5% per year on funds expended after vear 2000 This
cost is included in the Construction totals.
67
Section 1.4: Facilities Maintenance
♦ The Zoo is an aging facility that has experienced many years of
unfunded and deferred maintenance under the City's Recreation and
Park Department and now under the San Francisco Zoological Society.
The effect of deferred maintenance has been compounded by aging
facilities, limited funds, and a harsh ocean climate.
♦ A review of USDA inspection reports from 1994 to 1999 shows that the
Zoo is not adequately responding to violations that have been identified
by the USDA. It is the responsibility of the Zoo to evaluate all structures
and exhibits in the Zoo in light of the nature of the violations identified
in the USDA inspections, make such repairs and replacements
throughout the Zoo, and to establish a schedule of periodic inspections.
Therefore, we recommend that Zoo management develop a maintenance
quality control program to ensure that significant maintenance items
are identified and addressed prior to USDA inspections.
♦ As of July 7, 1999, the Zoo had a total of 173 maintenance requests
pending. The requests range from the minor, such as requests to fix
dripping faucets, to major repair projects in need of outsourcing, such
as repairing floors and grading exhibit areas. The oldest dated request
had been submitted two years prior to July 7, 1999.
♦ We found that, out of a total of 292 maintenance requests which were
submitted during 1998, 227 or 78 percent were completed as of July 7,
1999 and 65 requests or 22 percent were still pending, six months to one
and a half years after they had been submitted. Of the 65 work orders
still pending, 32 were deemed to be "emergency" or "critical."
♦ The Zoo will need to continue to enhance its animal care and the
quality of its visitor experience, as well as address USDA compliance
issues while the new Phase II capital projects are being constructed. We
recommend that Zoo management increase the maintenance
department to address deferred maintenance items until maintenance
is reasonably caught up. In order to accomplish this without increasing
operating costs, new maintenance employees should be assigned
strictly to Phase II program repair items, thereby qualifying all costs
for the force-account labor category in the Phase II program. - Zoo
management has recently received approval to use force-account labor
to perform necessary construction work related to its Phase II "Repair
and Replacement" project.
68
Office of the Budget Analyst
Section 1.4:
Facilities Maintenance
As part of this management audit, the Budget Analyst reviewed the state of
facilities maintenance at the Zoo. In order to assess maintenance of the Zoo's
facilities, we:
• Obtained and reviewed the Zoo's work order maintenance logs;
• Reviewed United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) inspection reports
from 1994 to 1999;
• Observed Zoo facilities;
• Interviewed Zoo maintenance personnel and management;
• Obtained the services of the current director of the Oakland Zoo who issued a
report, which in part addressed maintenance issues.
Assessment of Facility Conditions
The Zoo is an aging facility that has experienced many years of unfunded and
deferred maintenance under the City's Recreation and Park Department. The effect
of deferred maintenance has been compounded by aging facilities and the harsh
ocean climate. The oldest buildings still in use by the Zoo were built in the 1920s
and 1930s, many as Works Progress Administration (WPA) projects, including the
Elephant House, Lion House, and bear grottos. Other major sections of the Zoo were
completed in the 1960s and 1970s such as the Africa Scene, Insect Zoo, and the
Animal Hospital. Later developments in the 1980s and 1990s were the Primate
Discovery Center, Wolf Woods, Musk Ox Meadow, Gorilla World, Penguin Island,
Koala Crossing, Otter River, Feline Conservation Center, and the Australian
WalkAbout.
As reported in the Zoo's 1996 Bond Program Report, nearly three-fourths of the Zoo
needs to be rebuilt. Many of the old doors that lead into and out of the exhibit areas
do not function properly and expose animal keepers to unnecessary risk. Most of the
older facilities are severely out of date and in a state of poor maintenance. The
concrete shelters built by the WPA are no longer appropriate animal habitats, nor
are exhibits that require animals to be moved into separate quarters every night. In
addition, visitor facilities including restrooms, food services, and playgrounds are
substandard and inadequate.
69
Office of the Budget Analyst
Section 1.4:
Facilities Maintenance
USDA Inspection Findings
The United States Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service is charged with enforcement of the federal Animal Welfare Act.
USDA veterinary inspectors make routine, unscheduled visits to ensure that all
sites licensed under the animal Welfare Act are in conroliance with federal
guidelines. A review of USDA inspection reports from 1994 to 1999 shows that the
majority of the citations issued by the USDA concerned maintenance and repair of
animal enclosures at the Zoo.
Violations found by the USDA are put into one of four categories, with Category IV
as most serious. Category IV violations are those of which the Zoo has already been
informed and have either not been addressed or have recurred. These violations are
not just site specific. For example, if the Zoo receives a warning about peeling paint
in one area the first violation will carry a Category I violation. However, if any
instances of peeling paint are subsequently observed elsewhere in the Zoo, the Zoo
will receive a Category IV violation. In such cases, the USDA assumes that the
licensee is knowingly violating federal regulations.
The 1994 to 1999 USDA reports show that during this period, the Zoo has been
making mandated repairs to areas which have been specifically identified by the
USDA but has not made adequate efforts to identify and address similar
deficiencies in other locations. In the most recent inspection report of February 22-
24, 1999, the Zoo received three Category IV citations for previously identified
items. The USDA found that the specific problems identified in the prior reports
had been addressed but that the same problems were occurring elsewhere. For
example, the USDA cited rusting wire mesh and areas in need of floor repair in the
Primate Discovery Area and noted that the Zoo has been cited for these same types
of violations in the Primate Discovery Area in the past. According to the USDA, the
Zoo has made repairs in only those areas that were cited in prior inspections
instead of resolving the problem in all areas of the exhibit. The Zoo advises that it is
planning on addressing these items throughout the exhibit later this year.
The Zoo faces many challenges in addressing in its critical maintenance needs,
including limited funding, old facilities, years of deferred maintenance, and the
ocean climate. However, it is not the USDA's responsibility to identify and cite
similar deficiencies in all specific locations in the Zoo. Instead, it is the
responsibility of the Zoo to evaluate all structures and exhibits in the Zoo in light of
the nature of the violations identified in the USDA inspections, make such repairs
and replacements throughout the Zoo, and establish a schedule of periodic
inspections. Therefore, we recommend that Zoo management develop a
maintenance quality control program to ensure that significant maintenance items
are identified and addressed prior to USDA inspections.
70
Office of the Budget Analyst
Section 1.4:
Facilities Maintenance
General Maintenance Completion Rate and Backlog
The current Zoo maintenance staff consists of 12 FTEs with skills in plumbing,
carpentry, electrical work and general maintenance. In general, repair requests are
submitted on work order forms by staff throughout the Zoo. In addition,
maintenance staff report that a large volume of requests are submitted verbally,
primarily for more minor repairs. Requests, which are submitted on work order
forms, are assigned the following priority codes which are then logged into a
database:
1 = Emergency (includes USDA cited item or Safety Hazard of any
magnitude). Must be mitigated immediately and has probably already been
requested verbally. Examples of currently pending Emergency items include:
repair jaguar exhibit holding mesh chewed by animal; repair unstable gate
and replace back perimeter fence in the giraffe exhibit; replace rotten wood in
wild dog exhibit door with hole large enough for dog head; patch cracks in
Commissary floor; and repair broken food stand windows.
2 = Critical. Situation is stable but repercussions to the operations are
severe. Examples of currently pending Critical items include: repair rope
climbing structure in Children's Zoo; repair leaky roof in carnivore staging
area; repair hole in floor and crack in island of the sea lion exhibit; repair
Asian rhino door latching mechanism; replace hinge on Lion building kitchen
door.
3 = Needed. The situation is being managed but there is a persistent
negative effect on operations, safety, etc. Examples of currently pending
Needed items include: stabilize inflow at the Children's Zoo South Pond to
prevent damage; replace food stand fence post; repair pool valve in elephant
barn; install new rollers in aviary door between kitchen and exhibit; paint
Children's Zoo nursery.
4 = LAFNBNS (limping along for now but needed soon). The situation can be
managed indefinitely but resolution would create positive effects on
operations. Examples of currently pending LAFNBNS items include: install
radiant heater in Pygmy hippo exhibit; fill and regrade area in front of zebra
yard holding pens; remove kiosk that housed computer enrichment device in
Feline Conservation Center; fill in holes in black rhino yard and adjust service
gate; fix door in Graphics Department.
5 = Stable. Staff have gotten so used to working around it that it is
essentially considered normal but resolution would have positive effects on
operations. There are no Priority 5 maintenance requests currently pending.
71
Office of the Budget Analyst
Section 1.4:
Facilities Maintenance
To determine the maintenance completion rate and backlog of requests, we
examined the Zoo's maintenance logs. As of July 7, 1999, the Zoo had a total of 173
maintenance requests pending. The requests range from minor, such as requests to
fix dripping faucets, to major repair projects in need of outsourcing, such as
repairing floors and grading exhibit areas. The oldest dated request had been
submitted two year? prior to July 7, 1999.
Under the Zoo's maintenance record keeping system, the date a requested repair
was made is not recorded. Instead, completed projects are simply moved to a list of
completed items, with no indication of the date on which they were completed.
Therefore we were unable to determine the amount of time that had elapsed
between the date a repair request was submitted and the date that the repair was
completed.
Instead, in order to examine the Zoo's maintenance requests and develop
assessment of the completion rate, we examined all repair requests submitted
during 1998. A summary of those work orders is shown below:
Table 1.4.1
1998 Zoo Maintenance Work Order Requests
Number Percent
Completed as of 7/7/99 227 78%
Pending as of 7/7/99 65 22%
Total received in 1998 292 100%
Average monthly requests: 24
As shown in Table 1.4.1 above, a total of 292 maintenance requests were submitted
during 1998. Of those, 227 or 78 percent were completed as of July 7, 1999, and 65
requests or 22 percent were still pending. The data were further evaluated to
determine the nature of the pending requests. It was found that the 65 requests
submitted in 1998 that were still pending were prioritized as follows:
72
Office of the Budget Analyst
Section 1.4:
Facilities Maintenance
Table 1.4.2
1998 Maintenance Requests Still Pending, by Priority Level
As of 7/7/99
Number
Priority 1 (Emergency)
2
Priority 2 (Critical)
30
Priority 3 (Needed)
20
Priority 4 (LAFNBNS)
7
Priority 5 (Stable)
0
No Priority Level Indicated
_6
65
As shown in Table 1.4.2 above, there were 32 repair requests which had been
submitted from 6 through 18 months prior and were determined to be emergency or
critical situations, those which needed to be mitigated immediately or were
determined to have severe repercussions to operations. Twenty of the repair
requests were for Priority 3 "needed" repairs that indicate that the situation is
being managed but there is a persistent negative effect on operations and/or safety.
Among the 32 repair requests which were deemed to be emergency or critical
situations were repair and replacement of exhibit animal enclosure and visitor
barrier fences; locks and doors to animal exhibits; damaged mesh in animal
enclosures; and improvements required for animal enclosure areas subject to
flooding.
Phase II (New Zoo) Repairs and Renovations
Under the Phase II plan, over $75 million in public and private funds will be used to
build new exhibits and renovate existing exhibits with nearly $2.5 million of that
amount allocated to repair and replacement projects. Repair and replacement
projects include critically needed improvements to existing exhibits identified by the
USDA such as to repair the bear grotto roofs, repair the wire mesh in the Primate
Discovery Center, and replace the chimpanzee climbing structure. Of the $2.5
million, $0.5 million is earmarked for emergency maintenance. In addition, Phase II
includes a new warehouse facility that will address the Zoo's limited storage
capacity issues for the Zoo Maintenance Departments equipment and supplies.
The Zoo will need to continue to enhance its animal care and qvality of its visitor
experience, as well as address USDA compliance issues while the new Phase II
capital projects are being constructed. We recommend that Zoo management
increase the maintenance department to address deferred maintenance items until
maintenance is reasonably caught up. In order to accomplish this without
73
Office of the Budget Analyst
Section 1.4:
Facilities Maintenance
increasing operating costs, new maintenance employees should be assigned strictly
to bond-approved repair items, thereby qualifying all costs for the force-account
labor category in the Phase II program. According to the Zoo's Phase II expenditure
plan, $2,470,000 has been earmarked for repair and replacement projects.
The Zoo expects to realize steadily increasing revenues from improved attendance,
and revenue-generating special functions and events as the Phase II improvements
get underway and new exhibits are opened. It is planned that a portion of these
increased revenues would be used to support the expansion in maintenance services
once the funds set aside for Phase II repair and replacement projects have been
exhausted.
CONCLUSIONS
The Zoo is an aging facility that has experienced many years of unfunded and
deferred maintenance while under the management of the City's Recreation and
Park Department and under the San Francisco Zoological Society. The effect of
deferred maintenance has been compounded by aging facilities and the harsh ocean
climate. The SFZS has been working to address maintenance issues at the Zoo and
faces many challenges in addressing in its critical maintenance needs, including
limited funding, old facilities, years of deferred maintenance, and the ocean climate.
A review of USDA inspection reports from 1994 to 1999 show that the Zoo is not
adequately responding to violations, which have been identified by the USDA. It is
the responsibility of the Zoo to evaluate all structures and exhibits in the Zoo in
light of the nature of the violations identified in the USDA inspections, make such
repairs and replacements throughout the Zoo, and to establish a schedule of
periodic inspections. Therefore, it is recommended that Zoo management develop a
maintenance quality control program to ensure that significant maintenance items
are identified and addressed prior to USDA inspections.
As of July 7, 1999, the Zoo had a total of 173 maintenance requests pending. The
requests range from the minor, such as requests to fix dripping faucets, to major
repair projects in need of outsourcing, such as repairing floors and grading exhibit
areas. The oldest dated request had been submitted two years prior. We found
that, out of a total of 292 maintenance requests that were submitted during 1998,
227 or 78 percent were completed as of July 7, 1999 and 65 requests or 22 percent
were still pending, six months to one and a half years after they had been
submitted. Of the 65 work orders still pending, 32 were deemed to be "emergency"
or "critical."
The Zoo will need to continue to enhance its animal care and the quality of its
visitor experience, as well as address USDA compliance issues while the new Phase
Office of the Budget Analyst
74
Section 1.4:
Facilities Maintenance
II capital projects are being constructed. We recommend that Zoo management
increase the maintenance department staff to address deferred maintenance items
until maintenance is reasonably caught up. In order to accomplish this without
increasing operating costs, new maintenance employees should be assigned strictly
to Phase II program approved repair items, thereby qualifying all costs for the force-
account labor category in the Phase II program. - Zoo management has recently
received approval to use force-account labor to perform necessary construction work
related to its Phase II "Repair and Replacement" project.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The Zoological Society should:
1.4.1 Develop a maintenance quality control program to insure that significant
maintenance items are identified prior to USDA inspections.
1.4.2 Improve its maintenance work order log system by recording the date work
orders were completed in order to provide Zoo management with improved
record keeping and controls over the timeliness of repairs.
1.4.3 Increase the maintenance department staff to address deferred maintenance
items until maintenance is reasonably caught up. In order to accomplish this
without increasing operating costs, new maintenance employees should be
assigned strictly to the Phase II program approved repair items, thereby
qualifying all costs for the force-account labor category in the Phase II
program.
COSTS/BENEFITS
The recommendations contained in the section will provide better quality controls,
improve operations, and enhance the quality of animal exhibits and other facilities
at the Zoo. Our recommendations will not result in any increase in Zoo operating
costs since the recommended increase in maintenance department staff to address
deferred maintenance items should be assigned strictly for the Phase II program
approved repair items, thereby qualifying all costs for the force-account labor
category in the Phase II program.
75
Office of the Budget Analyst
Section 1.5: Browse Collection
• Our examination of the Zoo's workers' compensation claim data over
the past four years found that a significant portion of claims were for
injuries incurred by animal keepers while collecting fresh plant and
tree cuttings for animal food and enrichment, known as "browse." From
July of 1995 through June of 1998, there were ten browse related
workers' compensation claims at an estimated total cost to the City's
General Fund of $270,389. These injuries resulted in the loss of 477
workdays, representing 14.3 percent of all claims submitted by animal
keepers who are City employees and over 40 percent of the workers'
compensation benefits paid for injuries incurred during that four-year
period.
• The San Francisco Zoological Society has taken effective steps to
address the rate of employee injury such as contracting with the
Recreation and Park Department for browse collecting and assigning
responsibility for a greater portion of the Zoo's browse collection to
professional in-house horticultural staff. These efforts have recently
resulted in a drop in the number of browse-related injuries to City and
Zoological Society staff. The Zoological Society's long-term plans also
include meeting a portion of the Zoo's browse needs by planting trees
and bushes within the Zoo to be used for browse.
• However, such solutions do not adequately address all of the Zoo's
browse collection issues. The SFZS should establish a browse farm for
the Zoo's ongoing browse needs, which could result in long term cost
savings and would provide other important benefits, such as
eliminating potential exposure of the animals to toxins and ensuring an
ongoing adequate supply of food and enrichment materials for the Zoo's
animals.
As part of this management audit, the Budget Analyst reviewed and analyzed the
San Francisco Zoological Society's (SFZS) and the City and County of San
Francisco's workers' compensation claims and expenditures. In order to assess
workers' compensation claims and expenditures for workers at the Zoo, we:
• Obtained and reviewed documents from the SFZS and the City's Department of
Human Resources, including:
OSHA Form 200, "Lot and Summary of Occupational Injuries and
Illnesses," which reports information such as the injury date, the number
of lost days and number of days of restricted duty for each claim filed by
an employee;
76
Office of the Budget Analyst
Section 1.5:
Browse Collection
The City Workers' Compensation "Loss Summary Report", which shows
all costs incurred by the City for each claim filed by a City employee
assigned to the Zoo;
The SFZS's Workers' Compensation "Risk Management Report", provided
by the SFZS's insurance carrier, The Zenith, which shows all costs
incurred by the SFZS for each claim filed by a SFZS employee.
• Interviewed animal keeper staff, managers, and other SFZS personnel;
• Interviewed Recreation and Park Department personnel;
• Reviewed Recreation and Park Department work order documentation related to
browse collection; and
• Interviewed and reviewed documents from personnel at other animal facilities
with dedicated browse farms.
A Significant Portion of Workers' Compensation Costs Incurred
at the Zoo are Due to Browse Collection Injuries
An examination of workers' compensation claims over the past four years found that
a significant portion were for injuries incurred by animal keepers while collecting
fresh plant and tree cuttings for animal food and enrichment, known as "browse."
From July 1995 through March of 1999, there were ten browse related workers'
compensation claims filed by City animal keepers which resulted in the loss of 477
work days at a total current and future cost to the City of $270,389.
The San Francisco Zoo has a variety of animal species which require fresh plant and
tree cuttings, or browse, to meet part or all of their dietary needs. Browse is also
used by the Zoo for animal enrichment. For example, tree limbs are placed in many
of the Zoo's animal enclosures to provide a more natural environment and
stimulation for the animals. Browse collection needs at the Zoo have increased
steadily in recent years as the Zoo has striven to provide more "naturalistic"
settings for its animals, has recognized the importance of animal enrichment, and
has acquired animals, such as the koalas, who require large amounts of specific
plant species in their diet. Unlike some other zoos and animal facilities, the San
Francisco Zoo does not have a dedicated area set aside for browse production and
harvesting. Instead, browse for the Zoo's animals is collected weekly by animal
keepers and other personnel from public and private properties in the City and the
surrounding areas.
77
Office of the Budget Analyst
Section 1.5:
Browse Collection
As of March of 1999, 28 of the Zoo's animal keepers were SFZS employees and 31
were City employees. Under the 1993 Lease Agreement between the City and the
SFZS, all City employees salaries are paid by the SFZS, however, all workers'
compensation payments for claims filed by City employees at the Zoo are paid by
the City and not the SFZS. An examination of the City's workers' compensation
data showed that there were ten browse related workers' compensation claims
submitted from July of 1995 through March of 1999, an approximately four-year
period. As shown in the table below, injuries to animal keepers employed by the
City incurred while collecting browse resulted in estimated total costs of $270,389 to
the City and lost work time of 477 days over the four-year period. Injuries incurred
during the collection of browse represented 14 percent of all claims submitted by
animal keepers who are City employees and over 40 percent of the workers'
compensation benefits paid and the future liability incurred by the City.
Table 1.5.1
Workers' Compensation Claims Related to Browse Collection
Animal Keepers Employed by the City
July 1, 1995 through March 14, 1999
Number
Number
of work
Estimated
of
days
Amount
future
Fiscal Year
claims
missed
paid
liability
Total
1995-96
3
288
$ 89,207
$ 95,893
$ 185,100
1996-97
3
145
24,865
35,976
60,841
1997-98
4
44
9,539
14,906
24,445
1998-3/14/99
0
0
0
0
0
1995-99 Total
10
477
$123,611
$146,775
$270,386
All claims*
70
1,788
$306,748
$335,430
$642,178
% of all claims
14.3%
26.7%
40.3%
43.8%
42.1%
* All claims submitted by City employees assigned to the Zoo.
As shown in Table 1.5.1 above, no browse related workers' compensation claims
were submitted by City employees from July 1998 through March 1999. This
appears to be attributable in great part to the SFZS's success in shifting
responsibility for a large portion of browse collection from animal keeper staff to
professional tree cutting staff, which is discussed in more detail below.
78
Office of the Budget Analyst
Section 1.5:
Browse Collection
In addition to workers' compensation claims for City employees at the Zoo, we also
reviewed workers' compensation data for SFZS employees during the same period.
As noted above, 28 or approximately half of the Zoo's animal keepers are SFZS
employees. A review of the SFZS's workers' compensation claims data found that
three browse related claims had been submitted by animal keepers employed by the
SFZS between July of 1995 and March of 1999. Such claims were for relatively
minor injuries and represented a total of $2,095 in workers' compensation payments
and no lost work days.
The types of browse related injuries sustained by City and SFZS animal keepers
include contusions from falling equipment and branches, repetitive strain injuries
from using long pole cutters to cut overhead, poison oak contracted while locating or
cutting browse, and muscle sprains from uneven terrain. The two species of browse
that are most commonly collected are acacia and eucalyptus. We found that while
injuries were incurred while collecting all types of browse, the most serious injuries
were attributable to the use of extension pole pruners used to collect eucalyptus
browse from high up locations. Acacia browse collection resulted in fewer and more
minor injuries, most likely because the branches suitable for browse can be cut at
ground level.
Browse Collection Background
The San Francisco Zoo does not have a dedicated area set aside for browse
production and harvesting. Instead, browse for the Zoo's animals is collected from
public and private properties throughout the City and the surrounding areas. Zoo
staff advise that the volume of browse required by the Zoo has steadily increased as
the Zoo has worked to provide more "naturalistic" settings for its animals, has
recognized the importance of animal enrichment, and has acquired animals, such as
the koalas, who require large amounts of specific plant species in their diet.
Collection of eucalyptus browse for the koalas was the cause of the most serious
injuries among the claims we examined and presents the greatest ongoing browse
collection challenge to the Zoo. The sole source of food for koalas is eucalyptus which
is plentiful in the San Francisco area. However, according to animal keeper staff,
the collection of eucalyptus browse for the koalas is much more difficult than it may
first appear due to the specificity of what the koalas will consume and the large
volume of browse that they require.
Koalas require a large volume of fresh eucalyptus browse. Keeper staff advise that
each koala consumes the leaves contained on 12 to 15 branches of eucalyptus every
day. With the Zoo's current collection of eight koalas, this means that 672 to 840
eucalyptus branches must be supplied per week. Second, staff report that it is
desirable to supply three to four different species of eucalyptus per day in order to
79
Office of the Budget Analyst
Section 1.5:
Browse Collection
keep the koalas' appetites stimulated in captivity. This means that browse
collectors must travel to various locations to collect the right mix of eucalyptus
species for the koalas' weekly food supply. In addition, once a suitable browse
location is located, it cannot simply be returned to and re-harvested week after
week. Instead, it takes several months for trees to regenerate branches suitable for
subsequent harvesting. Browse collectors must take care not to overharvest since
constant cutting of new growth may be detrimental to the trees.
Further complicating matters is that browse collection must be done several times
per week since the koalas will eat only from very freshly cut branches which must
be placed in buckets of water almost immediately after cutting. This precludes
cutting and storing more than a short-term supply of eucalyptus. Also, koalas will
consume only the tender new growth shoots of the eucalyptus which grow at the
very top of the trees. To reach these branches, keepers used long overhead extension
pole pruners which were responsible for the most serious workers' compensation
claims during the period we examined, including injuries resulting from falling
branches, wounds from falling poles, and repetitive strain injuries.
Zoo staff advise that the collection of browse consumes a significant portion of their
time. Staff must travel all over the City and surrounding areas to harvest enough
browse throughout the year to meet their animals' needs and depend on personal
relationships and negotiations on a case by case basis with property owners for
permission to collect browse at various properties. Zoo staff report encountering
unsafe conditions when having to enter pub he and private lands to collect browse,
such as disturbing homeless encampments, negotiating difficult terrain, and hostile
property owners. In addition, it is often unknown if the trees or bushes in a browse
collection site have been contaminated by toxins which may then be passed on to
the animals.
Steps Taken by the Zoo to Address Browse Collection
Browse collection has been an ongoing challenge for Zoo animal keeper staff and
SFZS management. To its credit, the SFZS has successfully taken steps to address
the problem of worker injuries resulting from browse collection activities as
reflected by the drop in browse related workers' compensation claims beginning in
FY 1998-99.
In 1996, the SFZS entered into a work order agreement with the Recreation and
Park Department (RPD) for tree cutting services. Under the agreement, RPD tree
toppers, using an aerial lift truck, spend three days per week, four to five hours per
day, cutting various eucalyptus species at sites specified each week by animal
keeper staff and transporting it to the Zoo. The average cost to the SFZS for this
service was approximately $6,600 per month from July 1998 through March 1999 or
Office of the Budget Analyst
80
Section 1.5:
Browse Collection
$79,200 annually. Collection of all other types of browse continued to be performed
by Zoo animal keeper staff and other Zoo personnel.
The RPD contract has relieved koala keeper staff of the bulk of browse collection
activities. However, Zoo staff report that the quality and quantity of the eucalyptus
collected by the RPD has been inconsistent and the koala animal keepers must
continue to cut some eucalyptus as a supplement when the quality or quantity
collected by the RPD is insufficient or the RPD crew is unavailable. For example, for
a one month period in early 1999, the RPD's aerial extension truck was out of
service, thereby necessitating collection of eucalyptus browse by the Zoo's animal
keeper staff. Also, because RPD staff must be directed to the sites where the various
desired species of eucalyptus can be found, a portion of a Zoo animal keeper's time
still must be devoted to tracking and surveying areas for cutting. This requires
travel throughout San Francisco and surrounding areas on "reconnaissance
missions" in search of suitable browse and in order to secure permission to harvest
browse from property owners.
Currently, the SFZS is working toward bringing all browse collection activity under
the Zoo's in-house horticultural staff and terminating the RPD work order
agreement. In early 1999, the SFZS hired two horticultural staff to be trained in the
collection of browse who will be responsible for the collection of browse, thus
relieving the Zoo's animal keepers from the bulk of this duty and freeing their time
to devote to animal care, public interaction, environmental enrichment, and other
projects. The SFZS is also outfitting a donated truck with an aerial lift which it
believes will enable these two new horticultural staff eventually to harvest all of the
eucalyptus required for the koalas. The SFZS reports that once the truck is ready,
the contract with RPD for such services will eventually be discontinued. The SFZS
also plans to transfer two of its eight koalas to the San Diego Zoo in order to
decrease the San Francisco Zoo's browse needs.
Finally, the SFZS advises that it plans to meet some or all of its future browse
needs by including plantings of species used for browse in the new Zoo design.
Under current plans, trees and shrubs commonly used for browse will be planted
throughout the Zoo.
Long Term Solution - Establishment of a Browse Farm
The changes being implemented by the SFZS will address some of the concerns
regarding worker safety and the collection of browse, by assigning this task to
trained personnel and including browse in its new Zoo plans. However, these
measures do not adequately address all of the issues surrounding browse collection.
Office of the Budget Analyst
81
Section 1.5:
Browse Collection
Although two additional Zoo horticultural staff have been assigned to browse
collection, they are intended to replace eight to nine animal keepers who performed
this work as well as a particularly dedicated and recently retired Zoo truck driver
who regularly collected browse in addition to his normal duties. In addition to
browse collection, the two horticultural staff are also assigned to perform regular
tree work within the Zoo, such as pruning and removal of trees. Horticultural staff
will also take on the added responsibility of locating suitable sites for browse
collection and keeping up ongoing relationships with public and private property
owners to ensure permission prior to harvesting browse. This will continue to be
extremely time consuming and inefficient as staff must travel sometimes long
distances to find suitable browse.
It is unclear as to whether the two Zoo horticultural staff who will be dedicated only
part time to browse collection will be adequate to meet the Zoo's browse needs,
particularly since it is the RPD's experience that it requires a crew of three tree
toppers four to five hours per day, three days per week, just to meet the Zoo's
eucalyptus browse needs. Also, browse collection will be dependent upon the reliable
operation of a single aerial lift truck. Finally, it can not be assured that browse
collected from properties outside of the control of the Zoo are free of toxins which
may affect the Zoo's animals.
The SFZS advises that, in the future, all or a large portion of the Zoo's browse needs
will be met by on-site plantings contained in the new Zoo plan. Zoo staff advise that
the planting of 3,000 to 6,000 browse trees and shrubs along the perimeter of the
Zoo is being considered. However, we question whether the Zoo's browse
requirements and the new Zoo plans are compatible. The ideal trees for browse
should be at or close to ground level and would be frequently cut. Such trees are not
particularly aesthetically pleasing and may not be suitable for areas in public view.
Second, due to the windy conditions at the Zoo, the perimeter landscaping should
consist of dense shrubs and tall trees that are better suited to serving as
windbreaks.
The best long term solution for browse collection at the Zoo is the establishment of a
browse farm, particularly to meet the Zoo's eucalyptus requirements. Other zoos
and animal facilities such as the San Diego Zoo and Six Flags/Marine World have
established browse farms where needed species of plants are planted and harvested
in one location. Eucalyptus grown on a browse farm is kept at a dwarfed size where
new growth is regularly harvested so that cutting takes place at ground level,
exposing employees to a significantly reduced likelihood of injury. A browse farm
permits harvesting without the use of pruning poles and exposures to unfamiliar
terrain, driving hazards, and the general public.
82
Office of the Budget Analyst
Section 1.5:
Browse Collection
A farm would eliminate the need for staff to travel various distances daily and visit
unfamiliar locations to harvest browse. Ideally, the site would be in a controlled
area to ensure that no dumping of toxins or vandalism would occur at the site. In
order to obtain information on the size and cost of establishing a browse farm we
examined documents and conferred with staff at the San Diego Zoo, Six
Flags/Marine World, and San Francisco Zoo.
Koalas consume the tender shoots contained on 12 to 15 six-foot eucalyptus
branches per day. An established eucalyptus plant }delds approximately eight to ten
suitable branches per year. Therefore, to establish a browse farm, 438 to 684 trees
per koala should be planted. In order to feed six koalas, the requirements for a
eucalyptus browse farm for the Zoo are three to five acres of land suitable for
growing 14 to 17 different varieties of eucalyptus. The site must have water for
irrigation nearby and be accessible to equipment. Such a browse farm could be
established on Zoo grounds or in another location.
Initial costs to establish a browse farm are highly dependent upon the location
selected. Factors such as availability of irrigation and whether or not the Zoo must
purchase or pay to lease land would have a great impact on the price. A browse
farm which would address the Zoo's most pressing need for eucalyptus is estimated
to range from $76,000 to $213,000, assuming the Zoo would not incur any costs to
lease or purchase land. Ongoing costs are estimated from $61,000 to $68,000 per
year, including staff. It is estimated that it would take three to four years for a
eucalyptus browse plantation to reach sufficient size and maturity to begin
harvesting. An expansion of the browse farm to include other species of plants
would add approximately $20,000 for the initial installment and materials.
In 1996, the SFZS entered into discussions with the San Francisco Sheriffs
Department about establishing a browse farm on property adjacent to the San
Bruno Jail facility and developed a preliminary plan. Under that plan, it was
proposed that the Sheriffs Department would work with the Zoo to establish a
browse farm which would also serve as a horticultural work training program for
inmates. Due to changes in SFZS staffing, talks between the Zoo and the Sheriffs
Department were discontinued.
Given the benefits outlined above, the SFZS should renew efforts to establish a
browse farm at the San Bruno Jail site or form a similar partnership with another
agency. In December of 1999, the Sheriffs Department reported to the Budget
Analyst that it is still willing to consider the establishment of a browse farm at the
San Bruno Jail site. The Zoo Director has advised the Budget Analyst that the Zoo
will contact the Sheriffs Department in the very near future to discuss establishing
a browse farm at the San Bruno Jail site.
83
Office of the Budget Analyst
Section 1.5:
Browse Collection
CONCLUSIONS
An examination of workers' compensation claims over thepast four years found that
a significant portion of claims were for injuries incurred by animal keepers while
collecting browse. From July of 1995 through June of 1998, there were ten browse
related workers' compensation claims at an estimated total cost to the City of
$270,389, the loss of 477 work days, and representing 42 percent of all claims filed
during that period.
The SFZS has taken effective steps to address the rate of employee injury such as
contracting with Recreation and Park Department for browse collecting and
assigning responsibility for a greater portion of the Zoo's browse collection to
professional in-house horticultural staff. These efforts have recently resulted in a
drop in the number of browse-related injuries to City and SFZS staff. The SFZS's
long-term plans also the planting of trees and bushes at the Zoo to be used for
browse.
However, such solutions do not adequately address all of the Zoo's ongoing browse
collection needs. The SFZS should instead plan to establish a browse farm, which
would provide a more efficient, safe, and stable supply of browse for the Zoo's
animals.
RECOMMENDATION
The Zoological Society should:
1.5.1 Include an on-site or off-site dedicated browse farm in its new Zoo planning
and establish such a farm as soon as possible.
COSTS/BENEFITS
Implementation of the recommendation in this section would result in estimated
one time costs from $76,000 through $213,000, not including any costs to lease or
purchase land if necessary. Annual ongoing costs are estimated to be from $61,000
through $68,000. Potential long term cost savings could result from averted
workers' compensation claims and a reduction in Zoo staff hours required for browse
collection and would provide other important benefits, such as ehminating potential
exposure of the animals to toxins and ensuring an ongoing adequate supply of food
and enrichment materials for the Zoo's animals.
84
Office of the Budget Analyst
Section 1.6: Free Admission Days
♦ All admissions to the Zoo are free on the first Wednesday of each month.
These free days are the most highly attended of all days at the Zoo,
especially during the summer months. For example, on the free day
held in July of 1999, the Zoo recorded 23,771 visitors, a six-fold increase
compared to the total attendance of 3,875 on the following Saturday. On
the July of 1999 free day we observed the animals in the Gorilla World
exhibit completely surrounded with jostling adults and children two to
three persons deep. Other exhibit areas, such as the Lion exhibit, were
similarly overcrowded. In the Primate Discovery Center Gift Shop, the
two clerks on duty were clearly overwhelmed by the large volume of
visitors. By early afternoon, the trash receptacles near the Terrace Cafe
were filled to overflowing and long lines had formed for the playfield
restrooms. We observed security staff in some areas working to keep
order by reminding children to stay off of railings and not to throw
objects into the exhibits.
♦ We recommend that the Zoo consider proposing a modification of its
free day policy during the summer months to reduce stress on the Zoo's
animals and facilities. This may become particularly important while
the Zoo undergoes its planned capital improvements, which may
concentrate or increase free day attendance during these peak summer
months beyond the Zoo's capacity.
♦ One option would be for the Zoo to eliminate free days during peak
summer months and move those free days to other times of the year
when attendance would be more manageable. Or, the Zoo could limit
free admission to only certain hours during peak summer months. For
example, the Baltimore Zoo has free admission for children only on the
first Saturday of each month between the hours of 10 a.m. and noon and
the Portland Zoo has free admission on the second Tuesday of each
month after 5:00 p.m. Other options are to offer free admission to
children only and/or to encourage schools and other groups to limit
attendance on free days (local school and other organized groups are
granted free admission and out-of-County groups are granted
discounted admission) by offering alternative arrangements for days
that are not heavily attended.
85
Office of the Budget Analyst
Section 1.6:
Free Admission Days
Background
Under the Lease Agreement with the City, the Zoo is required to "retain the policy
of providing free access to the Zoo on certain days." Currently, the Zoo designates
the first Wednesday of every month as a "free day" where no admission fees are
charged. Monthly free days take place at institutions throughout the City, including
the Academy of Sciences, Legion of Honor, Museum of Modern Art, Exploratorium,
and the DeYoung Museum. Free days provide opportunities for low income families
to visit the Zoo and provides wide exposure for the facility to those who might not
otherwise be able or willing to pay admission.
In FY 1997-98 the S.F. Zoo had a total attendance of 826,769 visitors which
generated admission fee revenues of $2,083,983. In FY 1997-98, 422,228 out of the
826,769 total visitors (51 percent) paid admission to the Zoo. Another 192,037
visitors (23 percent) received free entry due to policies such as free days, free
admission for school groups, and promotional coupons. The balance of 212,504
visitors (26 percent) received free entry as part of their paid SFZS memberships.
Among visitors who paid an admission fee in 1997-98 the Zoo collected an average of
$4.94 per visitor. Averaged across all paid and free admissions (excluding member
admissions), the Zoo collected $3.39 per visitor during the same period.
In its 1997 Management/Marketing Survey, the American Zoo and Aquarium
Association reported that the average percentage of visitors receiving free
admission in zoos with annual operating budgets greater than $5 million was 13
percent (not including member admissions). As noted earlier, in FY 1997-98, the
percentage of free visitors to the San Francisco Zoo was 23 percent, or
approximately 77 percent (10 percentage points) higher than average. This can be
attributed to the Zoo's free first Wednesdays policy, free school group admission
policies, and coupons as well as a relatively low rate of attendance by paying
patrons.
Attendance on Free Days
Throughout the year free days are the most highly attended days at the Zoo. Free
days, particularly during the summer months, result in dramatic increases in
attendance compared to regular attendance during the same time period, especially
during the summer months. For example, in July of 1999, the Zoo recorded 23,771
free day visitors, a six-fold increase compared to the total attendance of 3,875 on the
Saturday following the free day. The significant peaks in attendance at the Zoo on
its monthly free days compared with attendance on the following day and the
following Saturday are displayed in the following table:
86
Office of the Budget Analyst
Section 1.6:
Free Admission Davs
Table 1.6.1
SF Zoo Attendance
Free Day Compared with the Weekday and Saturday Following Free Day
FY 1998-99
Weekday Following Saturday Following
Free Dav
Free Dav
Free Dav
July 1998
16,756
2,537
3,339
Aug 1998
24,727
2,875
4,432
Sept 1998
8,382
1,332
4,678
Oct 1998
6,326
905
3,213
Nov 1998
3,833
825
586
Dec 1998
839
191
1,214
Jan 1999
2,638
400
2,000
Feb 1999
5,033
701
127
Mar 1999
5.283
1,069
3,131
April 1999
1,957
612
1,315
May 1999
10,257
2,750
3,925
June 1999
9,068
2,631
19,018*
Total FY 98-99
102.299
16,828
46,978
July 1999
23,771
2,623
3,875
* Special Event
Survey of Other Zoo and Facilities' Free Day Policies
As a part of this audit, we surveyed the free day policies of eighteen other zoos
comparable to the San Francisco Zoo as well as other facilities in the Bay Area
which cater to children. We found that five of the eighteen zoos and other facilities
that we surveyed offered free days, as shown below:
Facilities With Free Days
Bay Area Zoos and Other Facilities
Exploratorium All admissions free first Wednesday of each month.
Academy of Sciences All admissions free first Wednesday of each month.
Other Zoos
Baltimore Zoo Children's admissions free 10 a.m. to noon on the first Saturday each month.
Bronx Zoo All admissions free each Wednesday.
Oregon Zoo (Portland) All admissions free on second Tuesday of each month.
87
Office of the Budget Analyst
Section 1.6:
Free Admission Days
Facilities Without Free Days
Bay Area Zoos and Other Facilities
Six Flags Marine World
San Diego Zoo
Los Angeles Zoo
Bay Area Discovery Museum
Zeum
Other Zoos
Zoo Atlanta
Woodland Park Zoo (Seattle)
Louisville Zoo
Pittsburgh Zoo
Dallas Zoo
Lawrence Hall of Science
Sacramento Zoo
Oakland Zoo
Source: Individual zoo and other facility Web sites, July 1999.
Impact of Free Days
The large number of visitors on free days during the peak summer months strain
the Zoo's animals, staff, and aging facilities. On the July of 1999 free day we
observed the animals in the Gorilla World exhibit completely surrounded with
jostling adults and children two to three persons deep. Other exhibit areas, such as
the Lion exhibit, were similarly overcrowded. In the Primate Discovery Center Gift
Shop, the two clerks on duty were clearly overwhelmed by the large volume of
visitors. By early afternoon, the trash receptacles near the Terrace Cafe were filled
to overflowing and long lines had formed for the playfield restrooms. Security staff
were observed in some areas working to keep order by reminding children to stay off
of railings and not to throw objects into the exhibits. However, our overall
assessment was that the Zoo was at or close to exceeding its capacity. Such large
crowds are detrimental to the animals since they increase stress on the animals as
well as the likelihood that the animals will be harassed or frightened.
On free days the Zoo assigns administrative staff to the grounds to assist with
operations and brings in additional security and other staff. The Zoo estimates that
its operating costs increase by approximately $3,000 on peak free days for portable
toilets, additional security, garbage disposal, ground repairs, additional Zoo staff
and staff overtime. These costs are in part offset by a $1.00 per person charge for
admission to the Children's Zoo. The Children's Zoo fee, which is charged only on
free days, is intended to keep the number of visitors to that area of the Zoo within a
manageable level.
We recommend that the Zoo consider modifying the its free entry policies during
summer months to reduce stress on the Zoo's animals, staff, and facilities. This may
become especially important as the Zoo undergoes its planned capital improvements
which could result in portions of the Zoo being closed off and thereby concentrating
visitors into a smaller area. The introduction of planned popular new exhibits will
Office of the Budget Analyst
88
Section 1.6:
Free Admission Days
also result in even greater free day attendance, exceeding the Zoo's current
capacity.
One option is for the Zoo to modify its "free day" program by eliminating the free
days during peak summer months and moving those free days to other times of the
year when attendance will be more manageable. Or, the Zoo could limit free
admission to only certain hours during peak summer months. For example, the
Baltimore Zoo has free admission for children only on the first Saturday of each
month between the hours of 10 a.m. and noon and the Portland Zoo has free
admission on the second Tuesday of each month after 5:00 p.m. Other options are to
offer free admission to children only and/or to encourage schools and other groups to
limit attendance on free days (local school and other organized groups are granted
free admission and out-of-County groups are granted discounted admission) by
offering alternative arrangements for days that are not heavily attended.
CONCLUSIONS
All admissions to the Zoo are free on the first Wednesday of each month. These free
days are the most highly attended of all days at the Zoo, especially during the
summer months. On the free day in July of 1999, the Zoo recorded 23,771 visitors, a
six-fold increase compared to the total attendance of 3,875 on the following
Saturday. Our assessment is that the Zoo's facility and staff are overwhelmed on
these peak summer free days. In addition, the stress caused by large crowds may be
harmful to the Zoo's animals.
RECOMMENDATION
The Zoological Society should:
1.6.1 Modify its free entry policy during summer months to reduce stress on the
Zoo's animals, staff, and facilities, particularly as the Zoo undergoes its
planned capital improvements.
COSTS/BENEFITS
Modifications to the Zoo's free day policy during summer months would most likely
not result in any significant fiscal impact. However, stress to the Zoo's animals,
facility and staff from overcrowding may be avoided if changes are made.
89
Office of the Budget Analyst
Section 2: Visitor Services
♦ Based on the Zoo's semi-annual visitor surveys, the percentage of Zoo
visitors who rate their overall satisfaction as "excellent" has been
slightly below 40 percent or between 40 and 50 percent since August of
1996. Prior to that, from March 1994 through February 1996 visitors
reporting an "excellent" rating averaged around 30 percent. While
recent trends have shown improvement, the Zoo has far to go in
providing an "excellent" experience for all of its visitors.
♦ In the May 1999 Zoo visitor survey, when asked what one thing they
would like to see changed at the Zoo, the most frequently mentioned
suggestions (by 29 percent of visitors) concerned providing improved
habitats for certain animals or all of the Zoo's animals in general.
♦ The Zoo's admission fees appear to be reasonable compared to other
zoos and facilities catering to families and children in the Bay Area. In
the case of its resident child and senior admission prices, the Zoo was
one of the lowest priced facilities of those surveyed. According to the
May 1999 visitor survey, 82 percent of respondents rated value for
admission price as "excellent" or "good."
♦ An inspection of the Zoo's food services by the City's Department of
Public Health in June of 1999 found numerous minor, but no major,
health violations. However, it was noted that the Zoo's concessions
"...are falling into various stages of decrepitude."
♦ Although the Zoo has recently made efforts to improve its restroom
facilities by painting stall doors and making other repairs, the poor
condition of the restrooms is in large part due to aging structures and
deferred maintenance that has resulted in unsightly and hazardous
conditions. Even the cleanest of restrooms would obtain a poor public
rating under these circumstances.
♦ Exhibit signage is in poor condition in various areas throughout the
Zoo. Damaged, worn out, dirty, and/or missing signage reinforces to the
visitor an image of a Zoo in a state of disrepair and neglect.
♦ Although aged and deteriorating facilities hamper efforts to keep the
Zoo grounds and facilities attractive and clean, the Zoo must allocate
greater resources to managing the attractiveness, cleanliness, and
information (educational and directional signage) aspects of the Zoo.
The Zoo should strengthen the maintenance, horticultural, and
custodial staffs, and provide them with the tools they need to perform
efficiently.
90
Office of the Budget Analyst
Section 2: Visitor Services
As part of this management audit, we included in our review an assessment of
overall satisfaction of Zoo visitors, admission prices, the quality and pricing of
concessions, and the attractiveness and cleanliness of the grounds and facilities. In
order to evaluate these areas, we:
• Interviewed former and current Zoo personnel, including the Zoo's former
Director of Visitor Services, the Director of Operations, and Graphic Design,
Facilities Maintenance and Development staff;
• Surveyed 17 facilities catering to families and children in the Bay Area and
other California zoos, as well as zoos in the United States which are roughly
comparable to the San Francisco Zoo in areas such as annual operating budget
and attendance, in order to compare admissions fees and policies;
• Reviewed the Zoo's Visitor Surveys from 1995 to 1999;
• Reviewed a survey of Animal Keepers which was conducted by the Budget
Analyst as a component of this audit;
• Examined SFZS financial records in the areas of operations, rides, food and
merchandise;
• Obtained the services of a team of custodial experts who assessed the quality of
housekeeping of public areas of the Zoo and provided recommendations for
improvement;
• Reviewed inspection reports by the Department of Public Health of the Zoo's food
concession stands; and
• Obtained information on and/or observed operations and services of other zoos
and facilities.
Overall Visitor Satisfaction
The Zoo contracts with a private firm to conduct a semi-annual Visitor Survey. In
order to assess the quality of Zoo visitors' experience in recent years we examined
survey data from 1995 to the most recent survey, conducted in May of 1999. The
surveys consist of approximately 40 questions, some of which differ slightly from
year to year. Information gathered includes demographics, party size and
characteristics, and the visitor's evaluation of exhibits, food and other services,
suggestions for improvements, and their overall experience. Each survey was
administered to between 200 to 350 visitors and surveys were conducted in the
spring and summer of each year.
91
Office of the Budget Analyst
Section 2:
Visitor Services
When asked to rate their overall satisfaction, 43 percent of visitors reported an
"excellent" rating in the most recent survey administered in May of 1999. Those
rating their experience as "good" was 50 percent, "fair" was 5 percent and "poor"
was 2 percent. A comparison of the percentage of Zoo visitors who ranked their
overall satisfaction as "excellent" from 1994 to 1999 is shown in the chart below:
Percent of Zoo Visitors Ranking Overall Satisfaction as "Excellent"
1994-1998
100 -|
90 • — — — — — —
80 ■ — — — — —
70 ■ — ,
60 — • : : ' " -•/--■•■■-V- - -■
Mar-94 Aug-94 Apr-95 Aug-95 Feb-96 Aug-96 Mar-97 Aug-97 Apr-98 Aug-98 May-99
Source: San Francisco Zoo Visitor Survey Reports, March 1994 to May 1999.
As shown in the chart above, the percentage of visitors rating their overall
satisfaction as "excellent" has been slightly below or in excess of 40 percent since
August of 1996. Prior to that, from March of 1994 to February of 1996, visitors
reporting such a rating averaged around 30 percent. This improvement is notable;
however, the Zoo has far to go in providing an "excellent" experience for all of its
visitors.
As noted elsewhere in this report, the Zoo contains a mix of old and new exhibits
which range from the outdated concrete bear grottos to attractive and recently
renovated or constructed exhibits. In the March 1999 visitor survey, those exhibits
which were given high marks (in order) were the Gorillas, Lions, Children's Zoo,
Monkeys, and Lorikeets. The exhibits cited most frequently by visitors when asked
to describe the least enjoyable exhibit were the Elephants, Lions, Bears, and
Aviary. The top reasons cited by visitors for the least enjoyable exhibits were
92
Office of the Budget Analyst
Section 2:
Visitor Services
"couldn't see" (21 percent), that the animals "looked sad" (21 percent), and "exhibit
run down" (11 percent). When asked what one thing they would like to see changed
at the Zoo, visitors gave a wide range of suggestions. The most frequentlv
mentioned suggestions (29 percent) were directed toward providing improved
habitats for certain animals or all of the Zoo's animals in general.
The second most frequent suggestions for change, cited by 12 percent of visitors,
concerned cleanliness at the Zoo. Tied as the third most frequently cited area which
received suggestions for improvement, each stated by 9 percent of polled visitors,
was the need to improve signage and parking at the Zoo.
Admission Fees
The admission fees at the San Francisco Zoo were compared to 17 facilities catering
to families and children in the Bay Area and other California zoos, as well as to zoos
in the United States which are roughly comparable to the San Francisco Zoo in
areas such as annual operating budget and attendance (an exception is the Bronx
Zoo, which is included for informational purposes only since the Bronx Zoo has a
budget and attendance significantly higher than the SF Zoo). The facilities and
their admission prices by category are shown in Table 2.1 on the following page:
93
Office of the Budget Analyst
Section 2:
Visitor Services
Table 2.1
Comparison of Admission Fees
July 1999
Adult Youth Child Senior '
San Francisco Zoo (non resident/residem, | $9.00/7.00| $6.00/3.50| $3.00/1.50j $6.00/3.50
Ca I ifo rn ia/Loca I:
San Diego Zoo
S 16.00
S 16.00
$ 7.00
$ 16.00
Exploratorium
$ 9.00
$ 5.00
$ 2.50
$ 7.00
Academv of Sciences
$ 8.50
$ 5.50
$ 2.00
$ 5.50
Los Angeles Zoo
$ 8.25
$ 8.25
$ 3.25
$ 5.25
Bav Area Discovery Museum
$ 7.00
$ 7.00
$ 6.00
$ 7.00
Zeum
$ 7.00
$ 5.00
$ 5.00
$ 6.00
Lawrence Hall of Science
$ 6.00
$ 4.00
$ 2.00
$ 4.00
Sacramento Zoo (weekends)*
$ 6.00
$ 6.00
$ 4.25
$ 6.00
Oakland Zoo
$ 5.50
$ 5.50
$ 3.00
$ 3.00
Other Zoos:
Zoo Atlanta
$ 10.00
$ 10.00
$ 6.00
$ 8.00
Baltimore Zoo
$ 9.00
$ 9.00
$ 5.50
$ 5.50
Woodland Park Zoo (Seattle)
fnon resident/resident)
$8.50/7.50
$6.00/5.25
$3.75/3.25
$7.75/6.75
Louisville Zoo
$ 7.95
$ 7.95
$ 4.95
$ 5.95
Bronx Zoo
$ 7.75
$ 7.75
$ 4.00
$ 4.00
Pittsburgh Zoo
$ 6.50
$ 6.50
$ 4.75
$ 4.75
Dallas Zoo
$ 6.00
$ 6.00
$ 3.00
$ 4.00
Oregon Zoo (Portland)
$ 5.50
$ 5.50
$ 3.50
$ 4.00
* 77ie Sacramento Zoo offers a discounted weekday rate ($5.50 adult admission).
Source: Individual zoo and other facility Web sites, July 1999.
As shown in the table, admissions fees for adults range from $5.50 to $16.00 for
adults and $2.00 to $7.00 for children. The S.F. Zoo's non-resident adult admission
fee of $9.00 is in the upper third of fees charged by the surveyed facilities. The S.F.
Zoo's resident adult admission fee of $7.00 is in the mid-range. Fees charged for
children's admission at the surveyed facilities range from $1.50 to $7.00. The S.F.
Zoo's non-resident child admission fee of $3.00 falls into the bottom third and its
resident child admission fee of $1.50 is lower than all of the surveyed facilities. The
S.F. Zoo's senior admission fee of $3.50 is also among the lowest.
The surveyed facilities provide a wide range of activities and experiences for visitors
which may or may not be directly comparable to the S.F. Zoo. In addition, the
quality of the exhibits and facilities varies widely. However, based on the 17
surveyed facilities, the Zoo's current admission fees appear to be reasonable
compared to other facilities catering to families and children in the Bay Area and at
94
Office of the Budget Analyst
Section 2:
Visitor Services
other comparable zoos. In the case of its resident child and senior admission prices,
the S.F. Zoo is one of the lowest priced facilities. Finally, according to the latest
visitor survey conducted by the Zoo in March of 1999, 82 percent of respondents
rated value for admission price as "excellent" or "good" (excellent=34%, good=48%
fair=15%, poor=3%).
Food Services
There are six food service stands at the Zoo, two of which provide a larger selection
of food and seating areas, The Plaza Cafe and The Terrace Cafe. The Plaza Cafe is
located near the Primate Discovery Center and is open year round. The Terrace
Cafe is located near the bear grottos and is open during peak periods. Four other
stands are open as needed, in the summer, or only on weekends and sell simple pre-
packaged foods such as popcorn, hot dogs, cotton candy, and sodas.
An inspection of the Zoo's food service stands by the City's Department of Public
Health in June of 1999 found that the Zoo's food services facilities "...are falling into
various stages of decrepitude." Accordingly, DPH found a number of minor
violations, the majority of which concerned needed repairs and areas requiring more
thorough cleaning. Most of the cited violations were remedied immediately or
within the allotted timeframe, the exception being those which required
replacement parts which were not readily available. The Zoo has also moved to
address a longstanding problem in The Plaza Cafe eating area where seagulls have
proved to be aggressive nuisances. In early summer of 1999, the Zoo enclosed The
Plaza Cafe's eating area in netting which appears to be effectively deterring the
seagulls.
In the May of 1999 visitor survey, 76 percent of respondents reported that food
prices were excellent, good, or fair, with 24 percent stating prices were poor. In the
same survey, 7 percent of respondents reported that food quality was excellent,
down from 13 percent in August of 1998. Overall, 55 percent of respondents
reported that food was excellent or good, 31 percent reported that it was fair, and 14
percent reported that it was poor.
Per capita food sales are slightly higher than average, ranging from $1.99 to $1.94
annually, compared to an average of $1.73 for facilities with operating budgets of
over $5 million as reported by the American Zoo and Aquarium Association in its
1997 Management/Marketing Survey. However, net food services revenues declined
by 60 percent ($1.70 per capita) in FY 1997-98 in part due the introduction of new
food products which did not meet sales expectations. A new Food Services manager
was hired in March of 1999 after the Zoo was without a manager for a span of
approximately eight months.
95
Office of the Budget Analyst
Section 2:
Visitor Services
Housekeeping in Public Areas
As a part of this audit, a team of custodial experts conducted a walk-through
inspection of the Zoo and provide recommendations for any needed improvements.
The custodial team found that some public areas in the Zoo have been maintained
in excellent condition. An example they cited is the Australian Walkabout exhibit
area where the animal keeper has dedicated time to assisting the housekeeping and
maintenance staff. However, in other public areas, the team observed conditions
greatly in need of housekeeping.
Based on their observations and subsequent discussions with housekeeping staff at
the San Diego Zoo, the custodial team concluded that the San Francisco Zoo's
cleaning staff of nine full time equivalent positions is clearly understaffed. This
problem is compounded by a lack of basic labor-saving custodial equipment
compared to other public facilities. The custodial experts found that even under the
most conservative estimates, another three to four custodians/maintainers should
be added to the current custodial staff of nine to have minimal staffing. The team
recommends that if the current level of staffing is maintained that management
should consider the use of on-call custodians or maintainors who could fill in for
personnel on vacation or leave without over-extending the remaining workers. In
addition, the custodial team recommends that funds be set aside to purchase labor
saving equipment to facilitate cleaning tasks.
Restroom Facilities
The most visible maintenance and housekeeping problem at the Zoo is the condition
of the restroom facilities. There are six restroom facilities at the Zoo, with 4-5 stalls
each. Four of these are wheelchair accessible. According to the custodial team, most
publications and surveys in the housekeeping field refer to public restrooms as the
area in which the public obtains their primary impression of any facility. This view
is supported by the Zoo's visitor surveys. Between 1994 and 1999, the most frequent
complaints voiced in the Zoo's visitor surveys concerned the restroom facilities.
Visitors cited that there were not enough restrooms; the facilities were dirty; too
dark, and hard to find; they lacked locks and diaper changing tables; and they were
not accessible for strollers.
Although the Zoo has recently made efforts to improve the restroom facilities by
painting stall doors and making other repairs, a large part of the poor conditions of
the restrooms is due to aging structures and deferred maintenance, which has
resulted in unsightly and hazardous conditions. The Zoo's restrooms were noted to
contain rusted and jagged metal covers under hand basins, makeshift plywood stall
doors, a large hole in one facility's floor, and ventilation consisting only of wide open
window areas. The custodial team advise that even the cleanest of restrooms would
96
Office of the Budget Analyst
Section 2:
Visitor Services
obtain a poor public rating under these circumstances. The team found that the
restrooms were being serviced daily. However, it was also evident that daily
periodic cleaning, either before or after public hours, had not been scheduled and
completed.
Because the restroom facilities are such an urea, of high visibility to the visitor,
proper cleaning of these areas should be made a high priority. We recommend that,
in addition to the daily servicing of restrooms, they be thoroughly cleaned either
after closing hours or before opening. Sign-in sheets posted on the walls would
assure the public that restrooms have been serviced as well as aid the custodial
supervisor.
Other Areas
Several other areas in need of general housekeeping deserve note. At the onset of
this audit, we noted that the cloth banners, food area table umbrellas, and food
kiosk awnings throughout the Zoo were sorely in need of cleaning. Food service
kiosk awnings throughout the Zoo and banners leading to the Feline Conservation
Center were severely discolored from mold and dirt. When clean and in good
condition, these items are festive and attractive additions to the Zoo. During the
audit period, awnings and table umbrellas were steam cleaned which greatly
improved appearances. However, Zoo staff report that steam cleaning is done on a
sporadic basis and that there is no schedule for regular upkeep and cleaning.
Regular cleaning and maintenance can help to slow deterioration and prolong the
useful life of these items. Therefore we recommend that the Zoo establish a schedule
for regular upkeep and cleaning of these items.
Exhibit Signage
Signs marking exhibits are in poor condition in various areas throughout the Zoo.
Damaged, worn out, dirty, and/or missing signage reinforces to the visitor an image
of a Zoo in a state of disrepair and neglect. We observed dirty, peeling sign labels,
worn to the point of being unreadable, exhibits without any signage, stands with
the signs obviously broken off and missing, and presumably vacant exhibits which
are unmarked. In particular, signs in poor condition were noted in the Magellanic
Penguin, Feline Conservation Center, Walkabout, Patas Monkey, and Lemur
exhibits.
First, we found that there is no clear line of responsibility for cleaning and simple
repair of the exhibit signage at the Zoo. Such tasks were previously the
responsibility of the Zoo's one-person Graphics Department. In the past, the
Graphics Department was aided by a volunteer who regularly cleaned the Zoo's
exhibit signs. However, those tasks are no longer being performed due to turnover
97
Office of the Budget Analyst
Section 2:
Visitor Services
in volunteer staff and an increase in Graphics Department workload generated by
the expansion of the Zoo's development activities.
Signs throughout the Zoo are made out of different materials and created using
various printing processes. Each type of sign requires different cleaning and repair
approaches so that the signs do not become damaged by applying harmful cleaning
solutions. A manual containing photos and descriptions of the different type of signs
and the associated cleaning procedures for each was created by the Graphics
Department in an unsuccessful effort to shift responsibility for these tasks to the
janitorial staff in the Operations Department. Therefore, at present, cleaning and
minor repairs of the Zoo's signage are not taking place due to a lack of a clear line of
responsibility and management oversight. We recommend that management assign
responsibility for inventory, minor repairs, and cleaning of signs to one department,
preferably to one or two persons who would then develop knowledge of the cleaning
and maintenance requirements for each type of sign.
Second, it appears that the Zoo is installing signs of inferior quality as a cost saving
measure. An example is those signs located in the Walkabout exhibit which have
been designed to be colorful and interactive, some of the most attractive exhibit
signage in the Zoo. However, only two years after many of the exhibit's signs were
replaced, nearly all are faded and chipped, with interactive elements no longer
functional, and in some cases the text is no longer readable. While salt air, pollen,
dampness, and harsh conditions at the Zoo contribute to the rapid deterioration of
signage, we found that signs are replaced on an ad hoc basis. We recommend that a
regular inspection and replacement schedule be established for all signs and that
signs that are currently of poor quality or damaged should be replaced as soon as
possible. In addition, the Zoo should consider the costs and benefits of obtaining
higher quality which is more durable and may result in lowered long term costs as
well as enhancing visitor enjoyment and projecting a more positive image of the Zoo.
Third, long term empty exhibits with old signage or no signage also project an
image of neglect and can be confusing to visitors. We recommend that simple
temporary signs be installed that inform visitors that exhibits are "under
construction" or with another appropriate explanation.
Finally, we found that the "For Your Information" signs posted throughout the Zoo
are exceptionally informative and visitor friendly. These signs contain information
which has been handwritten on inexpensive temporary signs by animal keepers
concerning certain exhibits or items of interest. We noted that some of the posted
signs were in need of re-lettering due to faded text or required updating. We
recommend that the Zoo make more efforts to ensure that the information on the
"For Your Information" signs is up to date and that the text is legible.
98
Office of the Budget Analyst
Section 2:
Visitor Services
Directional Signs
The Zoo contains a myriad of primary and secondary pathways which can be
disorienting to visitors. A major improvement was the installation of directional
signs were placed throughout the Zoo which are highly visible and easy to read.
However, "employee only" areas are marked only by small signs which are easilv
overlooked. Due to the nature of the pathway system in the Zoo, it can be difficult to
tell if one is entering an employee area. We observed adults and children on
multiple occasions wandering into off limits areas in the Zoo which could be
hazardous to visitors and disruptive to staff. It is recommended that the Zoo install
large red "STOP" signs or similar highly visible and easily understood signs at
entrances to "employee only" areas.
Phase II (New Zoo) Visitor Services Improvements
A major emphasis in the Phase II renovation of the Zoo will include updating visitor
service facilities at the Zoo. The Phase II plan includes a new Zoo Street which will
be a central boulevard through the Zoo with linked loop trails into each major
exhibit area. Plans for Zoo Street include new restrooms, gift shops, information
kiosks, lockers, stroller and cart rentals, and food sales. The new Zoo Street will be
a significant improvement over the current facilities when it is completed (currently
scheduled for completion in 2002), however, the recommendations contained in this
section concerning regularly scheduled upkeep and maintenance of the new
facilities and of those located in areas of the Zoo which are not included in the
Phase II renovations will remain of strong importance.
CONCLUSIONS
The percentage of visitors rating their overall satisfaction as "excellent" has been
slightly below 40 percent or between 40 and 50 percent since August of 1996. Prior
to that, from March of 1994 to February of 1996, visitors reporting such a rating
hovered around 30 percent. This improvement is notable, however, the Zoo has far
to go in providing an "excellent" experience for all of its visitors.
In the most recent Zoo visitor survey (May 1999), when asked what one thing they
would like to see changed at the Zoo, the most frequently mentioned suggestions (by
28 percent of visitors) concerned providing improved habitats for certain animals or
all of the Zoo's animals in general.
Based on 17 surveyed facilities, the Zoo's current admission fees appear to be
reasonable compared to other facilities catering to families and children in the Bay
Area and at other comparable zoos. In the case of its resident child and senior
99
Office of the Budget Analyst
Section 2:
Visitor Services
admission prices, the S.F. Zoo is one of the lowest priced facilities. According to the
latest Zoo visitor survey, 89 percent of respondents rated value for admission price
as "excellent" or "good."
An inspection of the Zoo's food concessions by the City's Department of Public
Health in June of 1999 found numerous minor, but no major, health violations.
However, it was noted that the Zoo's concessions "...are falling into various stages of
decrepitude."
Although the Zoo has recently made efforts to improve its restroom facilities by
painting stall doors and making other repairs, the poor condition of the restrooms is
in large part due to aging structures and deferred maintenance that has resulted in
unsightly and hazardous conditions. Even the cleanest of restrooms would obtain a
poor public rating under these circumstances. However, upon inspection, it was also
evident that daily periodic cleaning, either before or after public hours, had not
been scheduled and completed by Zoo custodial staff.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The Zoological Society should:
2.1 Consider the use of on-call custodians or maintainors who could fill in for
personnel on vacation or leave. As resources become available, purchase labor
saving equipment to facilitate cleaning tasks.
2.2 Ensure that restrooms are thoroughly cleaned either after closing hours or
before opening, in addition to the daily servicing of restrooms. Sign-in sheets
posted on the walls would assure the public that restrooms have been
serviced as well as aid the custodial supervisor.
2.3 Review the detailed housekeeping report prepared by the custodial experts,
which has been provided to the Zoo, and implement the recommendations
contained in that report as resources become available.
2.4 Implement the following recommendations concerning signage in the Zoo:
■ Assign responsibility for inventory, minor repairs, and cleaning of signs to
one department, preferably to one or two persons who would then develop
knowledge of the cleaning and maintenance requirements for each type of
sign.
■ Establish a regular inspection and replacement schedule for all signs and
replace signs that are currently of poor quality or damaged as soon as
possible. In addition, consider the costs and benefits of obtaining higher
quality signage which is more durable and may result in lowered long
100
Office of the Budget Analyst
Section 2:
Visitor Services
term costs in addition to enhancing visitor enjoyment and projecting a
more positive image of the Zoo.
■ Install temporary signs in empty exhibit areas that inform visitors that
exhibits are "under construction" or with another appropriate explanation.
■ Install "STOP" signs or similar highly visible and easy to understand
signs at the pathway entrances to employee only areas in order to prevent
visitors from mistakenly entering off limits areas in the Zoo which is
disruptive to Zoo staff and potentially hazardous to visitors.
■ Ensure that the text on the "For Your Information" signs is up to date and
that the text is legible.
COSTS/BENEFITS
Implementation of our recommendations would significantly improve the
appearance of the Zoo and the quality of Zoo visitors' experience. Costs to
implement the recommendations range from no costs (regular servicing of restrooms
and basic cleaning/maintenance of signage). Costs for purchasing labor saving
equipment would depend upon the type and quantity of equipment. However, such
costs may be offset by labor savings. Purchasing new signs will range from minimal
amounts (for temporary signs) and between $30 and $500 per permanent exhibit
sign.
101
Office of the Budget Analyst
Section 3.1: Financial and Operational Status; Compliance Issues
♦ The Zoological Society raised $11,494,465 against the $10 million minimum
Founders' Fund commitment and expended in excess of $7 million for
operations in each of the first five years of the Management Agreement.
♦ The Zoological Society developed a planning document in July of 1993
entitled "5-Year Plan: 1993-1998." The 5-Year Plan was approved in concept
on July 19, 1993, and, according to Zoo management, was used to guide the
Zoo's development. The 5-Year Plan shows that the Zoological Society
intended to significantly upgrade and improve Zoo facilities and the overall
Zoo experience within the first five years of the Zoological Society's
operation, by expending $30 million in funds raised by the Zoological Society
on capital improvements and by instituting managerial and other
improvements. A motion to approve a Capital Budget in the amount of $30
million was passed unanimously by the Board of Directors of the Zoological
Society on February 28, 1994. However, only $10,377,210 of the planned $30
million was expended on capital improvements ($6,803,246 in Founders'
Fund monies and $3,573,964 in Capital Campaign monies). The Zoological
Society shifted its capital campaign strategy to correspond with the City's
Zoo Bond program after recognizing that obtaining significant capital
contributions from its donor base was not feasible without the City's capital
funding commitment, given the condition of the Zoo. In the professional
judgment of the Budget Analyst, the Zoological Society's inability to raise
and expend the additional funds on capital projects to upgrade the Zoo and
the two-year delay in Zoo Bond sales are the primary reasons the Zoological
Society was unable to achieve its major operating and financial objectives
during the first five years of the Management Agreement.
♦ Over the first five years of the Management Agreement, actual
operating revenues, including bequests, were $63,885,195 or $15,633,805
less than the projected sum of $79,519,000, which was the five-year
operating revenue estimate presented by the Zoological Society when
the Zoo Management Agreement was submitted to the Board of
Supervisors for approval. Thus, the average annual operating revenue
shortfall for the five-year period was $3,126,761. Actual operating
expenditures over the five-year period were $65,755,637, or $15,004,259
less than the projected operating expenditure estimate of $80,759,896.
Thus, the average annual operating expenditure shortfall for the five-
year period was $3,000,852.
♦ Zoological Society staff did not obtain required building and other
permits for numerous capital projects and alterations at the Zoo.
Thus, required plan checks and inspections were not accomplished
and the Zoological Society did not pay required fees to the City.
Accordingly, the City Attorney advises that if something happens to
one of the structures because of the lack of plan checks and
inspections, the City could be held liable.
102
Office of the Budget Analyst
Section 3.1:
Financial and Operational Status; Compliance Issues
As part of our performance audit of the San Francisco Zoological Gardens, we
examined the extent to which the Zoological Society is accomplishing the financial
and operational objectives that were defined at the time the operation of the San
Francisco Zoo was transferred from the Recreation and Park Department to the
Zoological Society. Also in this section of the audit we examine whether the
Zoological Society is operating in compliance with the provisions of the San
Francisco Zoo Lease and Management Agreement and other relevant regulations.
To accomplish these objectives, we:
> Reviewed key documents such as the Management Agreement; the Concepts of
Expanded Partnership (the "Concepts"); the 1998 and the 1993 Accreditation
Reports of the American Zoological Association (AZA); the Zoological Society's
Draft 5-Year Plan: 1993-1998; USDA Veterinary Inspection Reports; the San
Francisco Zoological Gardens Master Plan; the San Francisco Zoo Strategic Plan:
1997-2004; and the March of 1998 Update of Strategic Plan: Financial Plan;
> Interviewed USDA staff and City and County of San Francisco staff responsible
for oversight of various functions performed by the Zoo;
> Reviewed performance measures in various reports;
> Conducted visual inspections of facilities;
> Examined in detail the audited financial report for FY 1997-98;
> Examined the pre-closing trial balance report for FY 1997-98;
> Developed a detailed analysis of revenues and expenses for FY 1997-98 based on
the Zoo's pre-closing trial balance report for that year;
> Thereafter, we examined in detail the audited financial statements for FY 1989-
90 through FY 1996-97 and developed detailed analyses of revenues and
expenses for that period.
Background
"Concepts" for the Expanded Partnership
In early 1992, the Mayor's Office, through the Recreation and Park Department,
requested that the San Francisco Zoological Society submit a proposal to expand its
role to include management of the entire Zoo, including increased private funding
for Zoo operations and maintenance.
103
Office of the Budget Analyst
Section 3.1: Financial and Operational Status; Compliance Issues
On September 1, 1992, the Recreation and Park Commission adopted Resolution
No. 16420 expressing support for an expansion of the City's partnership with the
San Francisco Zoological Society on the basis of a six-page document entitled
"Concepts for an Expanded Partnership Lease Agreement" (the "Concepts"), which
with supporting documents outlined a proposal to transfer decision-making
authority and operating responsibility for the Zco from the City to the Zoological
Society (the "Proposal"). The Zoological Society's Board of Directors had previously
approved the "Concepts" in April of 1992.
Funding and Accreditation Status in FY 1992-93
At the time the Zoological Society assumed operational control of the Zoo, the
following conditions existed:
1. The Capital Asset Management Report of November 29, 1990, included
approximately $10.1 million in recommended capital improvements, solely for
basic safety and structural improvements.
2 The American Zoological Association had tabled the Zoo's request for re-
accreditation in September of 1992 due to concerns about the poor physical
plant, the lack of funding to make major capital improvements, and
inadequate funding for operations.
3. The Zoo's General Fund subsidy from the City was reduced by $644,254, or
by 13.5 percent, from FY 1991-92 to FY 1992-93. Eight positions were
eliminated from the Zoo's FY 1992-93 General Fund budget
Projections of Operating Revenues and Expenses Contained in
the Rec/Park-Zoological Society Proposal
The "Proposal" included revenue and expense projections prepared by the
Recreation and Park Department and the Zoological Society for the first five years
of the proposed expanded partnership. These projections are shown in Exhibit 3.1.1
in the Appendix to this report. The budget summary shows that annual operating
expenditures for the Zoo were expected to increase from an estimated $11,850,254 in
FY 1991-92 to $18,821,000 in FY 1997-98, an average annual increase of
approximately eight percent. Exhibit 3.1.2 in the Appendix to this report, an extract
of a Zoological Society planning document, shows additional revenue and operating
assumptions and projections.
Operating revenues were projected to increase by approximately 12.8 percent per
year over the five-year period, including an estimated 15.7 percent average annual
104
Office of the Budget Analyst
Section 3.1:
Financial and Operational Status; Compliance Issues
increase in memberships in the Zoological Society, a 15.5 percent average annual
increase in contributions and events, and an 18.8 percent average annual increase
in net profits from retail sales at the Zoo.
Financial Performance
Table 3.1.1 below shows actual operating revenues compared to the projected
operating revenues for FY 1993-94 through FY 1997-98 contained in Exhibit 3.1.1.
Table 3.1.1
Actual Revenues Compared to
Projected Operating Revenues
Projected
Actual
Year
Revenues
Revenues
Difference
1993-94
$12,974,000
$10,794,196*
$2,179,804
1994-95
14,465,000
11,237,324
3,227,676
1995-96
15,922,000
12,251,313
3,670,687
1996-97
17,437,000
13,660,485
3,776,515
1997-98
18.721.000
13.805.634
4.915.366
Total Revenues
$79,519,000
$61,748,952
$17,770,048
Bequests
2.136.243
Total
$79,519,000
$63,885,195
$15,633,805
Over the first five-year period of the Management Agreement, actual operating
revenues, including bequests, were $15,633,805 or approximately 19.6 percent less
than projected operating revenues, which computes to an average shortfall of
$3,126,761 per year.
Table 3.1.2 below shows actual operating expenditures compared to the projected
operating expenses for FY 1993-94 through FY 1997-98.
Table 3.1.2
Actual Expenses Compared to
Projected Operating Expenses
Projected
Actual
Year
Expenses
ExDenses
Difference
1993-94
$13,691,746
$11,322,273*
$2,369,473
1994-95
14,702,780
12,387,744
2,315,036
1995-96
16,107,370
13,341,740
2,765,630
1996-97
17,437,000
14,615,865
2,821,135
1997-98
18.821.000
14.088.015
4.732.985
Total
$80,759,896
$65,755,637
$15,004,259
*Derived by allocating $1,086,023 of City funds to revenues and expenses recorded by the Zoological
Society for FY 1993-94. The Zoological Society did not assume control of the Zoo until October of
1993.
105
Office of the Budget Analyst
Section 3.1:
Financial and Operational Status; Compliance Issues
Over the first five-year period of the Management Agreement, total actual operating
expenditures were $15,004,259 or approximately 18.6 percent less than projected
operating expenditures, which computes to an average of $3,000,851 per year.
Analysis of Projected versus Actual Revenues
Table 3.1.3 below is a comparison of projected and actual operating revenue sources
for the five-year period of FY 1993-94 through FY 1997-98. The major shortfalls
were in Admission Fees ($7,624,667), which are a function of the attendance
shortfall; Retail Services ($7,567,200), which were and continue to be a major
problem area at the Zoo; and Membership Dues ($2,946,213), which are due to a
very large shortfall in projected Zoological Society memberships. Current Zoological
Society membership is approximately 29,000. Exhibit 3.1.2 shows that the proposal
projected a membership total of 47,000.
Table 3.1.3
Projected Revenue Source Amounts
Compared to Actual Revenue Source Amounts
FY 1993 94 through FY 1997-98
Projected
Actual
Difference
Revenues
Admission Fees
$16,458,000
$8,833,333
$7,624,667
Retail Services
23,040,000
15,472,800
7,567,200
Membership Dues
9,367,000
6,420,787
2,946,213
Contributions/Events
7,310,000
7,452,038
(142,038)
Children's Zoo
1,349,000
1,009,914
339,086
Other
1.995,000
2.560,080
(565,080)
Total Non-Gen. Fund
559,519,000
$41,748,952
$17,770,048
Management Fee
20,000,000
20,000,000
Bequests
2,136.243
(2.136.243)
Total
$79,519,000
$63,885,195
$15,633,805
Capital Project Funding
Section 15 of the Management Agreement, "Fiscal Matters," includes the following
provisions concerning funding:
• Founders' Fund: The Zoological Society agreed to provide from private
sources a minimum of $10 million within the first five years of the
Management Agreement. All amounts deposited in the Founders' Fund are
to be expended approximately as follows: $5 million shall be used to fund
Zoo capital improvements; $2 million shall be used to fund Zoo operating
106
Office of the Budget Analyst
Section 3.1:
Financial and Operational Status; Compliance Issues
expenses; and $3 million shall be used to increase the Zoological Society's
Endowment Fund.
• Capital Campaign: The Zoological Society agreed to use its reasonable
efforts to initiate and complete a fund-raising campaign in a minimum
amount of $25 million to finance the construction of capital improvements
at the Zoo. [The Management Agreement does not specify a time limit for
completing the Capital Campaign].
• Bond Issues: The City agreed to use its reasonable efforts to place before
the voters during the initial term of the Management Agreement [the first
five years] a measure calling for the issuance of general obligation bonds or
other acceptable method of public financing in an aggregate amount of at
least $25 million to finance capital improvements at the Zoo, including a
new front Zoo entrance, new animal exhibits, and such other facilities as
the City and the Zoological Society may reasonably agree [A Zoo bond
measure in the amount of $48 million was approved by the electorate in
the June 1997 election. The first appropriation of that $48 million bond
measure in the amount of $16,898,894 was approved by the Board of
Supervisors in November of 1999].
The Zoological Society raised a total of $11,494,465 for the Founders' Fund by FY
1996-97, $6,803,243 of which was expended on capital projects, as shown in Exhibit
3.1.3 of this report. Exhibit 3.1.4 of this report lists the capital projects and amounts
that were funded by the Founders' Fund.
The Zoological Society has raised a total of $14.2 million in Capital Campaign cash
and written pledges as of June 30, 1999, as shown in Exhibit 3.1.5 of this report (As
reported by the Zoological Society, approximately $21 million in cash, written
pledges, contingency pledges, and verbal pledges had been recorded as of December
of 1999 for the Capital Campaign).
The Zoological Society developed a planning document in July of 1993 entitled "5-
Year Plan: 1993-1998." The 5-Year Plan was approved in concept on July 19. 1993,
and, according to Zoo management, was used to guide the Zoo's development
although never formally adopted. The 5-Year Plan, in our opinion, is an excellent
document that covers the Zoo's key results areas of conservation, education,
research, recreation, and economics.
Exhibit 3.1.9 of this report (16 pages) contains portions of the 5-Year Plan. Exhibit
3.1.9 shows that the Zoological Society planned to raise and expend $30 million ($5
million in Founders' Fund monies and $25 million in Capital Campaign) on new
capital improvements and renovation projects during the first five years of the
Management Agreement. A motion to approve a Capital Budget in the amount of
$30 million was passed unanimously by the Board of Directors of the Zoological
Society on February 28, 1994. However, as shown in Exhibit 3.1.6 of this report,
107
Office of the Budget Analyst
Section 3.1:
Financial and Operational Status; Compliance Issues
only a total of $3,573,967 ($912,645 in FY 1996-97 plus $2,661,322 in FY 1997-98) of
the Capital Campaign objective of $25 million had been expended through FY 1997-
98.
In the professional judgment of the Budget Analyst, the failure to raise the
necessary funds to execute the renovation and new exhibit projects shown in
Exhibit 3.1.9 was the primary reason the Zoological Society was unable to generate
the attendance necessary to meet its Admission Fee and Retail Services revenue
objectives, and thus generate the operating funds necessary to sufficiently improve
the visitors' experience at the Zoo
Debt Financing of Operating and Capital Expenditures
In order to fund Zoo operations at a reasonable level though not generating
sufficient operating revenues to do so, the Zoological Society began to incur higher
long-term debt. The information that follows in this section provides an
understanding of the Zoological Society's financial operations and shows why the
Zoological Society found it necessary to incur the long-term debt. Most of the
financial information in this section has been extracted and arrayed from the
Zoological Society's Annual Audited Financial Statements. Summaries of those
audited financial statements are included in Exhibit 3.1.7 of this report.
Operating Revenues and Expenses
Table 3.1.4, "Operating Revenues and Expenses," shows that operating
revenues, including bequests, increased by $1,952,207 or 15.8 percent, from
$12,361,753 ($11,237,423 plus $1,124,429) in FY 1994-95 to $14,313,960
($13,805,634 plus $508,326) in FY 1997-98, which computes to an annual
compound rate of 5.0 percent.
Table 3.1.4
Operating Revenues and Expenses
FY 97-98 FY 96-97 FY 95-96 FY 94-95 FY 93-94
Support & Revenues 813,805,634 $13,660,485 S12.251.313 $11,237,324 $9,708,173
Expenses 14.088.015 14.615.865 13.341.740 12.387.744 10.236.250
Change in Net Assets before
Bequests & Adjustments ($282,381) ($955,380) (Sl,090,427) ($1,150,420) ($528,077)
Bequests 508,326 359.043 144,445 1,124,429
Acctng Change/Donation Q 375.564 0 0 0
Change in Net Assets S225.945 $220,773 (S945.982) ($25,991) ($528,077)
Table 3.1.4 also shows that Operating Expenses increased by $1,700,271 or 13.7
percent, from $12,387,744 in FY 1994-95 to $14,088,015 in FY 1997-98, or at a
compound rate of 4.4 percent. However, given the underfunded financial
position and unsatisfactory physical condition the San Francisco Zoo was in at
108
Office of the Budget Analyst
Section 3.1:
Financial and Operational Status; Compliance Issues
the time the Zoological Society assumed management of the facility, a growth
rate of 4.4 percent in expenses has not been sufficient to upgrade the quality the
facility to a desired state.
As recorded in the Zoological Society's audited financial statements and as
shown in Table 3.1.4, Operating Revenue and Support, which includes the
$4,000,500 management fee payment by the City to the Zoological Society, fell
short of Operating Expenses by a total of $4,006,685 for the five-year period, or
by an average of $801,337 per year. Bequests reduced the Support and Revenue
shortfall by $2,136,243, from $4,006,685 to $1,870,442, or by an average of
$427,248 per year. The audited financial statements and Table 3.1.4 also show
that the Zoological Society first broke even on an accrual accounting basis in FY
1996-97 by showing a positive $220,773 change in Net Assets for that fiscal
year.
Cash Flows and Long-term Debt
Operating Revenues and Expenses are but one way of evaluating an
organization's financial status. Additional valuable information is contained in
an organization's audited Statements of Cash Flows.
Revenue and Expense accounts, accounts from which an organization's
Statement of Activities (Income Statement, for private sector organizations) are
derived, contain items that do not affect inflows or outflows of cash, such as
contribution pledges, as a revenue source, and depreciation, as an expense
source. Organizations require cash to thrive and to survive. The figures
extracted from the Zoological Society's Statements of Cash Flow, displayed in
Table 3.1.5 below, show that significant net outflows of cash, in the amounts of
$896,042 and $788,589, occurred in fiscal years 1996-97 and 1997-98,
respectively.
Table 3.1.5
Unrestricted Fund Cash Flows
FY 97-98 FY 96-97 FY 95-96 FY 94-95 FY 93-94
Cash & Equiv:
Beginning of Year 81,852,764 S2.748.806 52,148,687 S2.138.329 S391.921
Net cash provided by (used in):
Operating Activities (596,756) (51,893,583) (5302,464) 5148,572 51,487,776
Investing Activities (93,328) 208,096 (68,996) (38,446) (28,883)
Financing Activities (598.505) 789.445 971.579 (99.768) 287.515
Net Increase (decrease) (5788,589) (5896,042) 5600,119 S10.358 51,746,408
Cash & Equiv:
End of Year 51,064,175 SI, 852,764 S2,748,806 S2. 148,687 S2.138.329
The figures also show that the Zoological Society ended each of those fiscal
years with cash and cash equivalents in the amounts of $1,852,766 and
$1,064,177, respectively. However, as shown in the Table 3.1.6, the Zoological
109
Office of the Budget Analyst
Section 3.1:
Financial and Operational Status; Compliance Issues
Society required those funds to cover the significant accounts payable less
accounts receivable balances.
Table 3.1.6
Accounts Payable compared to Accounts Receivable
FY 97-98 FY 96-97 FY 95-96 FY 94-95 FY 93-94 FY 89-90
Accounts Receivable S377.978 SG89.970 5721,757 $495,932 8608,743 SO
Accounts Payable 1.611.830 2.047.932 3.321,456 2.468.834 2.580,304 119,903
Receivables less Payables (SI. 233,852) (SI, 357,962) (52,599,699) (SI. 972,902) (51,971,561) ($114,746)
The great majority of the accounts receivable amounts were due the Zoological
Society by the City. Also, the majority of the accounts payable amounts were
due the City by the Zoological Society.
As shown in Table 3.1.7 on the following page, the Zoological Society began to
incur significant amounts of long-term debt in FY 1994-95, which peaked in FY
1996-97 in the amount of $2,428,741.
Table 3.1.7
Long-term Debt
FY 97-98 FY 96-97 FY 95-96 FY 94-95 FY 93-94
Current Portion of Long-term Debt S8.389 52,405,791 $1,604,296 5960,805 $62,485
Long-term Portion of Long-term Debt 1,821.847 22.950 35,000 95,000 355.000
Total 51,830.236 $2,428,741 SI, 639,296 $1,055,805 $417,485
In its most recent long-term debt agreement, the Zoological Society, in August
of 1998, entered into an unsecured revolving line-of-credit agreement with a
bank. According to the audited financial statements for FY 1997-98, the
Zoological Society may borrow up to $5 million at the Bank's Reference Rate
minus 0.25 percent through August 1, 2005. Interest is due monthly with
principal payments starting August 1, 2000, at $33,333 per month. As of August
20, 1999, the balance owed on the unsecured revolving line-of-credit was
$1,194,350.45.
In addition to Cash and Cash Equivalents balances averaging $1,990,552 for
fiscal years 1993-94 through 1997-98 in its Unrestricted Fund, the Zoological
Society had Unrestricted Fund Investment balances averaging $1,693,184 for
the same time period. Some have suggested that the Zoological Society's long-
term debt could be eliminated by using Investment funds to repay the revolving
line-of-credit balance, but that to do so would be unwise because the
Investments are achieving a much higher rate-of-return than the loan rate.
Table 3.1.8 shows the Zoological Society's Unrestricted Fund Investment
balances for FY 1993-94 through FY 1997-98 and the Investment Income
derived there from for the same time period.
110
Office of the Budget Analyst
Section 3.1:
Financial and Operational Status; Compliance Issues
Table 3.1.8
Unrestricted Fund Investments and
Investment Income
FY 97-98
FY 96-97
FY 95-96
FY 94-95
FY 93-94
Unrestricted Investments
Investment Income
SI. 895,779
$397,722
$1,631,356
$306,125
$1,933,372
S225.690
Sl,622,781
$173,077
SI, 382.633
226,415
In FY 1997-98, the Zoological Society achieved an investment return of
approximately 22.6 percent (determined by adding the fiscal year 1997-98 and
1996-97 ending balances, dividing that sum by two, and then dividing that sum
into the investment income figure of $397,722), which is far in excess of the
approximately 6.95 percent paid on its revolving line-of-credit. Also, it is true
that the Investment balance could be used to pay off the loan balance, but only
for the existing loan balance. And then the Investment Income, which is used to
fund Operating Expenses, would be significantly reduced. If subsequent years
bore sizeable cash outflows, as occurred in FY 1996-97 and FY 1997-98, the
Zoological Society would have to borrow additional funds, because the
Investment balances would be depleted.
The Budget Analyst is not suggesting that the Zoological Society should use its
Investment balance to pay off its long-term loan balance. We are simply stating
that the Zoological Society is not generating sufficient cash to fund its current
level of expenses and that the Zoological Society should take steps to enhance
operating revenues. Although we believe that there are some efficiencies that
can be achieved in the Zoo's operations, as are discussed in this audit report, we
also are not suggesting that the level of outlays be reduced in total, which we
think would result in reduced revenues. Our point is that the Zoological Society
must increase revenues to fund activities that will increase Zoo attendance or it
will be saddled with a significant level of debt as the Master Plan exhibits are
completed and become operational.
Meeting Minutes of the Zoological Society's Finance Committee
The Budget Analyst obtained the meeting minutes of the Zoological Society's
Finance Committee for the period of January 1997 through March of 1999. The
following two quotes included in the meeting minutes for the dates indicated
further attest to the Society's cash needs:
Friday, December 12, 1997
"Item 4. Cash availability for operations is week to week with no reserves for
the winter slow business cycle. (Name) directed (Name) to clear his
calendar and prepare a schedule of cash flow for the next meeting."
Office of the Budget Analyst
111
Section 3.1:
Financial and Operational Status; Compliance Issues
Friday, January 16, 1998
"Item 3 An eight-week cash flow analysis was presented to the committee
indicating an immediate (End of January) need for cash to fund
operating deficits generated in the first five months of the fiscal
year. After a thorough discussion a motion was made to increase
Bank Borrowing up to an additional $500,000 to cover interim cash
needs. Funds to be repaid by the end of the Fiscal Year."
What the Zoological Society Should Do in the Near Term to Increase
Revenues and Improve the Zoo
The first six recommendations of this report section are a near-term action plan
that is based on our total evaluation of the Zoo's operating and financial status and
how best to bridge the time span from now until substantial completion of Phase II
in 2002/2003. Some of these recommendations also appear in other sections of this
audit report pertaining to the particular subject they address.
Expense Control
The Budget Analyst has developed detailed expense schedules from the Zoo's Trial
Balance reports for fiscal years 1989-90 through 1997-98, which we used for
analytical reviews in some of the sections of this audit report. The schedules consist
of 22 pages, 11 for each half of the total period covered. One page of the schedules is
shown in Exhibit 3.1.8 of this report.
Concerning Exhibit 3.1.8, the Food Services section highlighted in the upper portion
of the exhibit shows Food Sales and Cost of Goods Sold figures for fiscal years 1994-
95 through 1997-98. Although externalities can skew expected relationships, in
general, a positive correlation between Food Sales and Cost of Goods Sold for Food
Services in any given year should occur. Note that Food Sales decreased by
$258,898 from FY 1996-97 to FY 1997-98, from $1,691,136 to $1,432,238. However,
instead of decreasing, Cost of Sales increased between the two fiscal years by
$2,973, from $564,693 to $567,666. According to Zoo management, Cost of Goods
Sold did not show a corresponding decrease with the reduction in Food Sales
because a new Visitor Services Manager experimented with food service promotions
that proved to be unprofitable.
The Zoological Society needs to closely control expenses on a monthly basis, and for
that purpose the Director of Finance publishes a Statement of Income and
Expenses. However, the schedule shown in Exhibit 3.1.8 provides detailed revenue
and expense information over an extended time base that normalizes seasonal
effects. We recommend that the Zoological Society develop and use revenue and
112
Office of the Budget Analyst
Section 3.1:
Financial and Operational Status; Compliance Issues
expense schedules of the type shown in Exhibit 3.1.8. Accordingly, we have provided
the set of schedules covering fiscal years 1989-90 through 1997-98, in electronic
form to the Zoological Society's Deputy Director.
Effects of Revenue Shortfalls on Zoo Staff
The revenue shortfalls experienced by the Zoological Society have had a very
negative effect on Zoo staff. Many questions to Zoo staff concerning an operational
issue have been answered with "that's not in the budget" or with "we don't have
funding for that." As Dr. Parrott states in his evaluation beginning at the bottom of
page 34 of this audit report, "The revenue urgency and sense of vulnerability
permeates the organization."
Compliance with Management Agreement Requirements
By virtue of the provisions contained in the Management Agreement between the
City and the Zoological Society, the Zoological Society assumed a set of obligations
and compliance requirements contained in various City, state, and federal laws,
rules, and regulations. This audit report section cites certain compliance
requirements and provides a description of the Zoological Society's adherence to the
requirements.
Section 6.1: This section is concerned with the timeliness of payments made by
the San Francisco Zoological Society to the City for services rendered.
Status: Payments for services due the City by the Zoological Society have not
always been made in a timely fashion, as documented in Section 1.3 of this
audit report.
Section 9.1: This section requires that the Zoological Society shall cause both itself
and the Zoo to be at all times (1) accredited in good standing with the American
Zoological Society, and (2) licensed with the United States Department of
Agriculture.
Status: The Zoo has maintained its accreditation with the AZA and its license
with the USDA. However, Zoo management has not appropriately addressed
the inspection findings of the USDA, as covered in Section 1.1 of this audit
report. Zoo management has taken steps to correct this situation.
Section 10.1: This section is concerned with the capital improvements made by
the Zoological Society and specifies that (1) the Zoological Society shall provide
copies of the final, as-built plans to the Department of Recreation and Park, and (2)
any alterations of capital improvements made by the Zoological Society shall comply
with applicable local, state, and federal laws, rules and regulations, and the
Zoological Society shall obtain permits for such alterations and capital
improvements.
113
Office of the Budget Analyst
Section 3.1:
Financial and Operational Status; Compliance Issues
Status: A major deficiency exists with respect to the requirement to obtain
permits for alterations and for capital improvements. Table 3.1.9 shown below
lists alterations and capital projects performed at the Zoo for which our review
of Department of Building Inspection permit files indicate that building,
electrical, plumbing, or mechanical permits, as may be required by the
individual project, were not obtained by the Zoological Society. Table 3.1.9 also
contains approximate costs for DBI plan check and building permit fees, but not
additional fees, such as electrical and plumbing permit fees, that may be
applicable to individual projects. The Budget Analyst is recommending that
DBI defer such fees so that the Zoo can apply those funds to construction
modifications needed to bring the capital projects constructed without permits
into compliance with the Building Code. Zoo management has begun to work
with staff of the Department of Building Inspection (DBI) to comply with permit
requirements.
114
Office of the Budget Analyst
Section 3.1:
Financial and Operational Status; Compliance Issues
Table 3.1.9
Zoo Projects without Building Permits on File
Bid-
Total Plan
Permit
Plan Check
Check and
Project
Date
Cost
Cost
Cost
Permit Costs
Triple Grotto Project
93/94
$12,816
$264.55
$132.28
$396.83
Visitor Services
93/94, 94/95
69,345
900.90
450.45
1351.35
Renovation
Flamingo Project
93/94, 94/95
38,600
619.45
309.73
929.18
Monkey Island
95/96
18,221
362.05
181.03
543.08
Service/Support
93-98
118,418
1,253.75
629.75
1,883.50
Renovation
Warthog Exhibit
95/96
105,481
1,172.50
587.60
1,760.10
Children's Zoo Renov.
95-98
148,216
1,441.25
727.35
2,168.60
Elephant Renovation
95-97
113,575
1,222.50
613.60
1,836.10
Mothers Bldg. Renov.
95-97
27,593
494.33
247.16
741.49
Aye Aye Exhibit
97-98
67,429
885.30
442.65
1,327.95
Kodiak Bear Exhibit
97-98
28,526
505.70
252.85
758.55
South American
94/95
8,845
199.35
99.78
299.13
Gateway
Picnic/Overnight
97/98
34,196
573.95
286.98
860.93
Lion Cub Exhibit
96/97
280,825
2,266.25
1,156.35
3,422.60
Improvement LGFP&R
95/96
8,438
199.55
99.78
299.33
Demolition Cat/Monkey
95/96
163,994
1,535.00
776.10
2,311.10
Macropod Exhibit
94/95
475,616
3,485.00
1,790.10
5,275.10
White Alligator
95/96
150,681
1,447.50
730.60
2,178.10
Support Facilities
95/96
104,168
1,166.25
584.35
1,750.60
Puente Al Sur
98/99
250,671
2.078.75
1.058.85
3.137.60
Total
$22,073. S8
$11,157.34
$33,321.22
Section 12.2: This section specifies that the Zoological Society shall care for all
Zoo animals in accordance with all federal, state, and local laws and regulations,
and in accordance with the policies and guidelines adopted by the AZA.
Status: As reported in Section 1.1 of this audit report, based on Dr. Joel
Parrott's comprehensive evaluation, veterinary care at the San Francisco Zoo is
excellent and general care is good, although the existing Zoo facilities limit the
ability of management to provide desirable habitats. Further, according to Dr.
Parrott, current animal care is vastly superior to that which was provided in
the late 1980's and the early 1990's. As stated in Dr. Parrott's report, the Zoo
should continue to improve its animal enrichment activities.
115
Office of the Budget Analyst
Section 3.1:
Financial and Operational Status; Compliance Issues
Section 12.4: This section specifies that the Zoological Society shall provide
animal and veterinary care to the bison at Golden Gate Park and
consultation regarding capital improvements to the bison exhibit located therein.
Status: Section 1.1 of this audit report covers the actions required of the
Department of Recreation and Park to improve conditions for the bison in
Golden Gate Park.
Section 13.1: This section specifies that the Zoological Society shall maintain the
Zoo in a clean, safe, and sanitary and sightly condition.
Status: As reported in Sections 1.4 and 2 of this audit report, much remains to
be accomplished to bring the buildings and grounds up to an attractive
condition.
Section 15.1 Founders' Fund: $10 million
Section 15.2. Capital Campaign. $25 million
Section 15.3. SFZS Revenue: Payment of Expenses
Under Section 15.1 of the Management Agreement, the SFZS agreed to
establish a "Founders' Fund" from private sources in the minimum amount of
$10 million within the first five year term of the Management Agreement.
Section 15.1 further specifies that monies expended from the Founders' Fund
would be approximately as follows: $5 million for Zoo capital improvements; $2
million for Zoo operating expenses; and $3 million to increase the SFZS
Endowment Fund (a fund containing restricted contributed assets whereby only
income generated by the assets may be used for operating purposes). Exhibit
3.1.3 of this report shows that the Zoological Society collected a total of
$11,494,465 in fulfillment of its Founders' Fund commitment. Exhibit 3.1.4 of
this report shows the specific projects, totaling $6,803,246 in Founders' Fund
monies, which were funded in accordance with the Agreement.
Under Section 15.2 of the Management Agreement, the SFZS agreed to use its
reasonable efforts to initiate and complete a fund-raising campaign (the
"Capital Campaign") in the minimum amount of $25 million to finance the
construction of capital improvements at the Zoo. Exhibit 3.1.5 of this report
shows the periods in which Capital Campaign funds in the amount of
$14,174,411 ($9,380,309 in cash and $4,794,102 in written pledges) have been
received. Exhibit 3.1.6 shows the projects to which Capital Campaign funds in
the amount of $5,775,870 have been applied.
Section 15.10: This section specifies that within 30 days after the end of each fiscal
year, the Zoological Society shall arrange for an audit of its books and records by an
independent, certified public accountant approved by the Controller. Section 15.10
116
Office of the Budget Analyst
Section 3.1:
Financial and Operational Status; Compliance Issues
further specifies that the Zoological Society shall deliver to the Recreation and Park
Commission for its acceptance an original, signed copy of such annual report by the
earlier of 30 days after the completion of the audit or 120 days after the end of the
fiscal year covered by the audit.
Status: For fiscal years 1993-94 through 1997-98, the letters signed by the
auditors transmitting the audited financial statements to the Zoological Society
are dated no later than September 12. However, for fiscal year 1998-99, the
audited financial statements had not been presented to the Recreation and Park
Commission by November 19, 1999.
Section 16.2: This section specifies that the Zoological Society shall provide
public access to information concerning the operation of the Zoo to the same
extent that such information would have been available to the public pursuant to
local ordinances if the Department had continued to operate the Zoo in the same
manner as it did prior to the date of the Agreement.
Status: The Joint Zoo Committee reviews major Zoo activities and decisions in
public and solicits public comment. The Zoological Society is now serving an
expanded function with a citizenry accustomed to reviewing and questioning
everything. In our opinion, the Zoological Society has nothing to hide and in
certain respects, has performed admirably. We therefore urge a more "open door"
policy to public inquiries and requests for information.
Section 17: Insurance.
Status: Insurance requirements and issues are covered in Section 13.3 of this
audit report.
5-Year Plan: 1993 - 1998
As previously stated, The Zoological Society developed a planning document in July
of 1993 entitled 5-Year Plan: 1993-1998. The 5-Year Plan was not formally adopted,
but was used as a working document to guide the Zoo's development. The 5-Year
Plan covers the Zoo's key results areas of conservation, education, research,
recreation, and economics. The Zoological Society has accomplished many of the
objectives contained in the 5-Year Plan, including a significant number of new
capital improvements and renovation projects that we have included in the
Introduction to this audit report. The 5-Year Plan included objectives and, in some
cases, detailed plans for specific capital projects with an estimated cost of $10
million, including an African Savanna project, visitor pathways, options for empty
exhibit spaces, and renovation projects
117
Office of the Budget Analyst
Section 3.1:
Financial and Operational Status; Compliance Issues
One Year Plan (Of the 5-Year Plan)
Objective: Eliminate caged feeling and improve animal conditions.
Renovate or demolish empty exhibits
Reduce chain link, asphalt, replant and add color, particularly at
Entrances and Loop System.
Objective: Improve visitor experience
Improve cleanliness throughout park.
Provide more information on Zoo programs, animals, and plans.
Establish visual identity, unified graphics.
Comment: We cannot emphasize too strongly how important a clean, attractive
facility with informative and unified graphics signage is to the
impression made on Zoo visitors. This issue is addressed in Sections
1.1, 1.4, and 2 of this audit report.
Objective: Develop integrated trained professional staff
Improve customer service skills of all staff and volunteers
Improve internal communications and build pride in institution
Improve planning skills of senior management
Comments: Zoo management should continue to stress the importance of good
customer service.
Internal communications, particularly within the Animal Management
Department, are in great need of improvement. A significant
communications problem exists between many of the Animal Keepers
and Zoo management, as cited in Section 1.1 of this audit report.
The Zoo needs to improve its planning processes, particularly at the
top level. The Zoo Director, with the assistance of his primary staff, but
with the opportunity for feedback from everyone who works at the Zoo,
should establish ambitious but attainable objectives, measurable in
construct and numbering between five and seven, that everyone in the
Zoo can relate to. Those objectives should be based on the Zoo's "Key
Results Areas" (KRAs) and should, in general, provide the basis for
objective setting down through the organization.
The Oakland Zoo has a workable set of objectives, which we have provided
to San Francisco Zoo management. Also, we have provided the Zoo
Director with a time-tested text on setting goals and objectives that
should assist the organization in developing good objectives, action plans,
and controls.
118
Office of the Budget Analyst
Section 3.1:
Financial and Operational Status; Compliance Issues
The One Year-Five Year Plan: Goal #6: Community
Objective: Establish target objectives to increase ethnic diversity in Board of
Directors, staff, volunteers, and community served.
Comment: The San Francisco Zoological Society has not achieved ethnic diversity
within its Board of Directors. Table 3.1.10 shows the ethnic status of
the Zoological Society's Board of Directors.
Table 3.1.10
Ethnic Diversity: San Francisco Zoological Society
Board of Directors
April 1999
Ethnicitv
Number
Percentage
White
53
93.0
African American
2
3.5
Hispanic
0
0.0
Asian
2
3.5
Native American
_0
0.0
Total
57
100.0
As shown, as of September 1999, the San Francisco Zoological Society Board of
Directors consisted of 53 White members, two African American members, no
Hispanic or Native American members, and two Asian members.
In addition to the foregoing, ethnic minorities are not represented in any of the
management positions reporting to the Director of the Zoo.
Women are especially well represented throughout the management and staff of the
Zoo.
CONCLUSIONS
The Zoological Society has met or is meeting the minimum financial obligations
contained in the Management Agreement. However, those financial obligations do
not insure the development of a quality facility.
The Zoological Society developed a planning document in July of 1993 entitled "5-Year
Plan: 1993-1998." The 5-Year Plan was approved in concept on July 19, 1993, and,
according to Zoo management, was used to guide the Zoo's development although never
formally adopted. The 5-Year Plan shows that the Zoological Society intended to
119
Office of the Budget Analyst
Section 3.1: Financial and Operational Status; Compliance Issues
significantly upgrade and improve Zoo facilities and the overall Zoo experience within
the first five years of the Zoological Society's operation, by expending $30 million in
funds raised by the Zoological Society on capital improvements and by instituting
managerial and other improvements. A motion to approve a Capital Budget in the
amount of $30 million was passed unanimously by the Board of Directors of the
Zoological Society on February 28, 1994. However, only $10,377,210 of the planned
$30 million was expended on capital improvements ($6,803,246 in Founders' Fund
monies and $3,573,964 in Capital Campaign monies). The Zoological Society shifted its
capital campaign strategy to correspond with the City's Zoo Bond program after
recognizing that obtaining significant capital contributions from its donor base was not
feasible without the City's capital funding commitment, given the condition of the Zoo.
In the professional judgment of the Budget Analyst, the Zoological Society's inability to
raise and expend the additional funds on capital projects to upgrade the Zoo and the
two-year delay in Zoo Bond sales are the primary reasons the Zoological Society was
unable to achieve its major operating and financial objectives during the first five years
of the Management Agreement.
Over the first five years of the Management Agreement, actual operating revenues,
including bequests, were $63,885,195 or $15,633,805 less than the projected sum of
$79,519,000, which was the five-year operating revenue estimate presented by the
Zoological Society when the Zoo Management Agreement was submitted to the
Board of Supervisors for approval. Thus, the average annual operating revenue
shortfall for the five-year period was $3,126,761. Actual operating expenditures over
the five-year period were $65,755,637, or $15,004,259 less than the projected
operating expenditure estimate of $80,759,896. Thus, the average annual operating
expenditure shortfall for the five-year period was $3,000,852.
The retail sales contribution to Zoo revenue generation has been particularly poor.
As shown in Table 3.1.3, for the five-year period of FY 1993-94 through FY 1997-98,
actual retail sales revenue was $7,567,200 less than projected. Further, a financial
report generated by the Zoological Society entitled "Revised Expected Budget Fiscal
Year 1998-99" shows a $537,428 negative variance for "Retail Operations," which
constitutes approximately 81 percent of the entire negative variance amount of
$664,444.
The Zoological Society has significantly increased its long-term debt to cover
operating deficits and to provide advanced funding for capital projects. Long-term
debt peaked in FY 1996-97 at $2,428,741.
The revenue shortfalls experienced by the Zoological Society have had a very
negative effect on Zoo staff. Many questions to Zoo staff concerning an operational
issue have been answered with "that's not in the budget" or with "we don't have
funding for that." As Dr. Parrott states in his evaluation beginning at the bottom of
120
Office of the Budget Analyst
Section 3.1:
Financial and Operational Status; Compliance Issues
page 34 of this audit report, "The revenue urgency and sense of vulnerability
permeates the organization."
Zoological Society staff did not obtain required building and other permits for
numerous capital projects and alterations at the Zoo. Thus, required plan checks
and inspections were not accomplished and the Zoological Society did not pay
required fees to the City. Accordingly, the City Attorney advises that if something
happens to one of the structures because of the lack of plan checks and inspections,
the City could be held liable.
Our review of the "5-Year Plan: 1993-1998" revealed that the Zoological Society has
accomplished many of that document's objectives and goals, including many of the
accomplishments cited in the Introduction to this audit report. However, in addition
to effectively managing Phase II of the Master Plan, other objectives important to
the Zoo's success, such as improving internal communications and developing a
Board of Directors and that reflects the ethnic diversity of the City, need to be
emphasized.
The Zoo has maintained its accreditation with the AZA and its license with the
USDA. However, Zoo management has not appropriately addressed the findings
resulting from USDA inspections, as covered in Section 1.1 of this audit report.
For FY 1998-99, the Zoological Society did not transmit its audited financial
statements to the Recreation and Park Department within 120 days of the end of
the Society's fiscal year (June 30th of each year), as required by Section 15.10 of the
Management Agreement.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The Zoological Society should:
3.1.1 Thoroughly clean up the Zoo and keep it that way.
3.1.2 Construct high quality signage.
3.1.3 Increase the number of mammals and birds in the Zoo collection
commensurate with being able to care properly for the animals.
3.1.4 Beautify empty exhibits with conservation projects, landscaping, or anything
else that is attractive and fits the motif of a Zoo whose primary concerns are
conservation, education, and quality animal care.
3.1.5 Set goals for the Zoo that all of its employees can relate to and feel a part of.
121
Office of the Budget Analyst
Section S.I.-
Financial and Operational Status; Compliance Issues
3.1.6 Increase efficiencies by controlling expenses, including using the type of
expense schedule shown in Exhibit 3.1.8.
3.1.7 Continue working with the Department of Building Inspection to obtain
permits on all facilities maintenance projects and capital projects that
require permits but that were not obtained prior to performing the work.
3.1.8 Emphasize to the Zoo staff that City, state, and federal rules and regulations
are to be followed, especially with regard to obtaining building permits.
3.1.9 Emphasize to the Zoo staff that USDA inspections are to be responded to in
an appropriate manner.
3.1.10 Enhance efforts to achieve the objectives and goals set in the 1993 planning
document that have not yet been accomplished.
3.1.11 In accordance with Section 15.10 of the Management Agreement, deliver to
the Recreation and Park Commission for its acceptance an original, signed
copy of the Zoological Society's audited annual financial statements by the
earlier of 30 days after the completion of the audit or 120 days after the end
of the fiscal year covered by the audit.
3.1.12 Adopt a more "open door" policy to public inquiries and requests for
information.
COSTS/BENEFITS
The recommendations contained in the section will enhance expense control and
have the potential to significantly increase Zoo attendance and thus, Zoo revenues.
Costs for signage and additional custodial resources would be incurred, but are
required to improve the attractiveness of the Zoo and for educational purposes in
any case. Our recommendations will not result in any increase in Zoo operating
costs for maintenance since the recommended increase in maintenance department
staff to address deferred maintenance items should be assigned strictly for the
Phase II program approved repair items, thereby qualifying all costs for the force-
account labor category in the Phase II program. Additional costs, in excess of
currently planned A-l exhibit costs, may be required to fund first-class A-l exhibits.
Although there are no direct savings that can be attributed to the objectives and
compliance issues covered in this section, by implementing the recommendations
contained herein the Zoo will strengthen its organization and avoid any costs which
may accompany non-compliance with the Management Agreement or other City,
state, or federal rules and regulations.
122
Office of the Budget Analyst
Section 3.2: Payment and Invoicing Procedures for City
Services Provided to the Zoo
♦ Section 6.1 of the Management Agreement requires that the Zoological
Society pa5r to the City the cost of all services provided by the City to
the Zoological Society within 30 da37s of receipt of a written invoice.
However, the Zoological Society was late in paying the majority of
Recreation and Park Department invoices on time for City services
provided to the Zoo. Of a total of 169 invoices issued from October 1993
to April 1999, 137 or 81 percent were paid late. The payments sampled
were late an average of 34 days ranging from 1 day to 111 days overdue.
The cost to the City, in terms of lost income from interest yields the City
would have otherwise earned from invested funds, was $80,262 over the
course of five j'ears.
♦ Independent of and in addition to the late payments caused by the
Zoological Society, the Recreation and Park Department failed to
invoice the Zoological Society in a timely manner after services were
rendered to the Zoo. The longest delays in issuing invoices involved
sewer service and water charges, maintenance services, and light, heat
and power charges. For example, sewer service charge invoices
sampled were delayed an estimated average of 284 days ranging from
122 to 726 days late. The delays experienced from October 1993 through
December 1998 resulted in a loss of income from interest yields in the
estimated amount of $149,724 over the course of five years.
♦ The present system of appropriating funds to cover Zoo sewer service
and Zoo light, heat, and power expenses in the annual Recreation and
Park Budget and then having the Department bill the Zoo to reimburse
the City for those expenditures is cumbersome and not cost effective. It
has contributed significantly to costly delays in processing invoices and
payments.
♦ Accordingly, at the suggestion of the Budget Analyst, the Public
Utilities Commission (PUC) has agreed to have its Clean Water
Department and Bureau of Light, Heat, and Power bill the Zoological
Society directly instead of billing the Recreation and Park Department
for PUC services at the Zoo. The Zoo Society has expressed its
agreement to the change to direct billing.
♦ Implementation of our recommendations should result in avoiding the
loss of interest income to the City in an estimated amount of $50,000 per
year.
123
Office of the Budget Analyst
Section 3.2:
Payment and Invoicing Procedures for
City Services Provided to the Zoo
Background
Under Section 6.1 of the Management Agreement, the Zoological Society is required
to pay the City the cost of all services provided by the City to the Zoo within thirty
days of receipt of written invoices from the Recreation and Park Department.
The costs of services provided generally are classified into two categories: payroll
costs, and non-pa3rroll costs.
Payroll costs cover the salary and fringe benefit costs (excluding the cost of workers
compensation premiums or claims) of Civil Service personnel directly employed at
the Zoo.
Non-Payroll costs cover utility services provided by the City Public Utilities
Commission such as water, sewer and light, heat, and power. Miscellaneous
services, such as general maintenance and repair, and other various services such
as tree topping and emergency repairs, which are Recreation and Park Department
General Fund costs, are also included.
As part of our performance audit of the Zoo we examined the payment record of the
Zoological Society to determine whether the Society has conformed to the 30-day
requirement in paying for invoiced City services. This review included the following:
1. An analysis of the Recreation and Park Department's Zoo Abatement Salaiy
Billing Schedule, a Zoo Maintenance Cost Recovery Schedule, a Zoo Utilities
(Telephone and PG&E) Schedule, and a Zoo Abatement Sewer Service Charge
Schedule. These schedules all show the service period, invoice date, due date,
amount due, payment date, and check number from June 1997 to April 1999.
2. An examination of the Zoological Society's file of payment checks, Recreation and
Park invoices, and monthly bank statements covering services provided from
October 9, 1993, to April 15, 1999.
3. The San Francisco Treasurer's Table of Earned Interest Yields from invested
Pooled Funds by month and fiscal year, for the period of FY 1976-77 through
May 1999. This table was utilized to calculate costs to the City in lost interest
income yields resulting from late payments and late invoicing.
124
Office of the Budget Analyst
Section 3.2:
Payment and Invoicing Procedures for
City Services Provided to the Zoo
Compliance With Lease and Management Agreement
Our review of the cited documents revealed that for the period of October 1993, to
April 1999, 137 or 81 percent of 169 total invoices were paid late by the Zoological
Society resulting in a loss of interest income to the City estimated at $80,292, as
shown below: (Detail in Tables I and II)
No. of Estimated
Number of Invoices Loss of
Type of Invoice Invoices Paid Late Interest Yields
Payroll
137
110
$62,704
Non Payroll
32
27
17.588
Total
169
137
$80,292
However the foregoing does not accurately reflect the entire cost of late processing.
An integral part of the audit involved the review of the Recreation and Park
Department billing documents to determine whether invoices have been processed
in a timely and effective manner. Unduly late preparation and submission of
invoices, as well as delinquent payments, contribute to the loss of interest yields
which otherwise could be realized through the Treasurers' investments.
It became evident during the course of review of the relevant documentation that
there was a much greater loss of interest jdeld income to the City incurred from
dela}rs in submitting invoices for non-payroll services by the Recreation and Park
Department than the losses resulting from late Zoological Society payments. For
example, sewer service charge invoices sampled were delayed an average of 284
days ranging from 122 to 726 days late. The estimated loss to the City from these
delays totals $149,724 and is summarized below (See Tables III, IV and V for
details).
Service Estimated
Table Service Tvpe Dates Lost Income
Table III Sewer Service and Water 3/95-6/98 $91,651
Table IV Utilities (Heat, Light & Power, Telephone) 1/96- 12/98 22,792
Table V Maintenance (misc. repairs, tree service) 10/93-10/96 35.281
Total $149,724
125
Office of the Budget Analyst
Section 3.2:
Paymen t and Invoicing Procedures for
City Services Provided to the Zoo
Recreation and Park Department staff attribute the delays to staffing
reorganization, staff turnover and absences, some inadvertence, sporadic
submission of time sheets by maintenance crews, and sporadic billing by Light,
Heat and Power.
The magnitude of the volume of overdue payments and delayed invoicing is
illustrated by the financial data shown below. This information was included in the
annual Independent Auditor's reports to Zoological Society hy the Certified Public
Accountancy firm of Pannell, Kerr, and Forster.
Total Operating Expenses Estimated Amounts of
Incurred by the Zoo Reimbursable Expenses
and Reimbursable to the Citv Remaining Outstanding
Fiscal Year Ending
June 30, 1994 S3, 025, 953* SI, 349,286
June 30, 1995 3,837,482 1,668,386
June 30, 1996 3,685,052 2,492,820
June 30, 1997 3,559.276 1,245,721
June 30, 1998 3,084,384 804,725
* Prorated for effective date of lease, October 9, 1993.
Section 6.1 of the Management Agreement requires that the Zoological Society and
Recreation and Park Commission develop a process to document the provision of
services and payment thereof in accordance with the Agreement. The Recreation
and Park Department did not develop a system for this purpose until June 1997 -
three 3rears and nine months after the Agreement became effective. At that time,
the Department installed a biihng and tracking procedure, whereby staff can keep
track of the status of issued invoices. In addition, in July 1997, the Department
developed a quarterly billing procedure to expedite the recovery of Zoo maintenance
costs.
While there appears to be some improvements in the billing performance of the
Recreation and Park Department since the inception of the 1997 billing system,
invoicing delays continue to occur due to staffing problems, late billing by the Light,
Heat and Power Bureau, and sporadic submission of maintenance crew time sheets.
Furthermore, it does not appear from the record that the Department's billing
system has resulted in any improvement in the promptness of Zoological Society
payments since June 1997. As a matter of fact, more invoices were paid late by the
Society after June 1997, than before. (See Table I & Table II)
The Recreation and Park Department reports that it does not date stamp invoices
when they are sent to the Zoo for pa37ment. During the course of the audit we also
found that the Zoological Society does not date stamp the invoices when they are
126
Office of the Budget Analyst
Section 3.2:
Payment and Invoicing Procedures for
City Services Provided to the Zoo
received. (We found only one invoice with a date-received stamp). As a result, we
had to rely on actual invoice dates, Zoological Society dates on its pajnnent checks,
and a large sample of Zoological Society's monthly bank statements showing the
dates each Zoological Society check was cashed. For most cases, particularly for
Recreation and Park pa3*roll invoices, the actual invoice date coincided with the
date it was submitted to the Zoo. We recommend that the routine practice of date
stamping all invoices and pa\rments when received and sent by both the Zoological
Society and the Recreation and Park Department be implemented. It is essential to
the effective management of a billing and collection system.
CONCLUSIONS
Section 6.1 of the Management Agreement requires that the Zoological Society pay
to the City the cost of all services provided by the Cny to the Zoological Society
within 30 days of receipt of a written invoice. However, the Zoological Society was
late in paying the majority of Recreation and Park Department invoices on time for
City services provided to the Zoo. Of a total of 169 invoices issued from October
1993 to April 1999, 137 or 81 percent were paid late. The payments sampled were
late an average of 34 days ranging from 1 day to 111 days overdue. The cost to the
City, in terms of lost income from interest }delds the City would have otherwise
earned from invested funds, was $80,262 over the course of five years.
Independent of and in addition to the late payments caused by the Zoological
Society, the Recreation and Park Department failed to invoice the Zoological Society
in a timely manner after services were rendered to the Zoo. The longest delays in
issuing invoices involved sewer service and water charges, maintenance services,
and light, heat and power charges. For example, sewer service charge invoices
sampled were delayed an estimated average of 284 days ranging from 122 to 726
days late. The delays experienced from October 1993 through December 1998
resulted in a loss of income from interest }Tields in the estimated amount of
$149,724 over the course of five }^ears.
The present system of appropriating funds to cover Zoo sewer service and Zoo light,
heat, and power expenses in the annual Recreation and Park Budget and then
having the Department bill the Zoo to reimburse the City for those expenditures is
cumbersome and not cost effective. It has contributed significantly to costly delays
in processing invoices and payments.
Accordingly, at the suggestion of the Budget Analyst, the Public Utilities
Commission (PUC) has agreed to have its Clean Water Department and Bureau of
Light, Heat, and Power bill the Zoological Society directly instead of billing the
Recreation and Park Department for PUC services at the Zoo. The Zoo Society has
expressed its agreement to the change to direct billing.
127
Office of the Budget Analyst
Section 3.2:
Payment and Invoicing Procedures for
City Services Provided to the Zoo
Implementation of our recommendations should result in avoiding the loss of
interest income to the City in an estimated amount of $50,000 per year.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The Zoological Society and Recreation and Park Department should:
3.2.1 Arrange for the Zoo to be directly billed for sewer service and light, heat and
power costs by the Clean Water Department and Bureau of Light, Heat and
Power, respectively. This should expedite timely payment by the Zoological
Society and free Recreation and Park staff to devote more labor-intensive
time to billing and collection procedures for maintenance and payroll costs.
The Recreation and Park Commission budget should be adjusted accordingly.
3.2.2 Set up and maintain a date stamping procedure to better manage, control,
and expedite payments by the Society and facilitate timely invoicing by the
Department.
COSTS/BENEFITS
Billing the Zoological Society directly will expedite prompt payment for sewer and
light, heat, and power services and enable Recreation and Park Department staff to
more promptly bill for maintenance and personnel services. This should result in
the avoidance of an estimated loss of interest income to the City in the amount of
$50,000 annually.
128
Office of the Budget Analyst
Section 3.3: Compliance With Insurance Requirements
♦ Section 17.1 of the Management Agreement requires that, subject to the
approval of the City Risk Manager as to the insurers and policy forms,
the Zoological Society shall place and maintain throughout the term of
the Agreement, and pay the cost thereof, various types of insurance
coverages. The Management Agreement also provides for periodic
reviews of the Zoological Society's insurance coverages, but does not
specify a time period for such review.
♦ Prior to this performance audit, the Zoological Society did not obtain
the City Risk Manager's approval of the insurers, policy forms, and
insurance coverages procured, as required by the Management
Agreement, and the coverages were never reviewed.
♦ The City Risk Manager has recently reviewed the insurance coverages
and has determined that the provision limiting the policy forms and
amount of both Malpractice and Commercial Crime Insurance to those
in effect on the commencement date of the Management Agreement is
ambiguous. To remedy this situation, the Department of Recreation and
Park and the Zoological Society should develop a Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) to clarify specific amounts of coverage and
minimum limits.
♦ The Zoological Society maintains Property Insurance on City-owned
Zoo buildings, even though such coverage is not currently required by
the Agreement. The City Risk Manager believes that Property
Insurance coverage is essential. Because the Recreation and Park
Department does not insure its real property, the City Risk Manager
recommends that the Zoological Society continue to provide such
coverage without interruption, for the duration of the Management
Agreement. Therefore, we recommend that the Department of
Recreation and Park and the Zoological Society develop an MOU
providing that the Zoological Society maintain Property Insurance of
City-owned buildings for the duration of the Management Agreement.
♦ We recommend that the Department of Recreation and Park and the
Zoological Society develop an MOU to provide that insurance coverage
reviews occur every two years, or sooner if warranted by a substantial
change in circumstances.
129
Office of the Budget Analyst
Section 3.3:
Compliance with Insurance Requirements
Background
Section 17.1 of the Management Agreement sets forth the types of insurance
policies and coverages that the Zoological Society is required to procure, maintain,
and pay the costs thereof throughout the term of the Agreement. The insurers and
policy forms are expressly made subject to the approval of the City Risk Manager.
Section 17.2 of the Management Agreement includes several miscellaneous
insurance provisions such as special endorsements, document derive ly and notice
requirements, and procedures for periodic review.
To determine whether the Zoological Society fully complied with the insurance
provisions of the Agreement, we:
> Reviewed the insurance provisions of the Management Agreement to determine
the types of insurance coverages and policy limits required.
> Interviewed the Recreation and Park Department Property Management
Assistant in charge of insurance to determine whether the insurance coverage
was properly documented for the Zoo.
> Obtained copies of all required Certificates of Insurance from the Recreation and
Park Department and the Zoological Society.
> Delivered the Certificates of Insurance along with the insurance provisions of
the Management Agreement to the City Risk Manager for his review.
> Interviewed the City Risk Manager for his evaluation of the insurers,
determination of Zoological Society's compliance with provisions of the
Management Agreement, and to obtain his recommendations concerning
insurance.
Compliance with Lease and Agreement Requirements
In general, Section 17 of the Management Agreement specifies requirements for (1)
t^qpes and amounts of insurance required, (2) review and approval by the City's Risk
Manager, (3) notice of cancellation, non-renewal, etc. and delivery of certificates to
the City, (4) periodic review of types of insurance and limits, and (5) other specific
requirements.
At the outset of the insurance audit, we found that the policy forms and insurers
had never been approved by the City Risk Manager since the commencement of the
Agreement.
Office of the Budget Analyst
130
Section 3.3:
Compliance with Insurance Requirements
Accordingly, we obtained copies of certificates from the Recreation and Park
Department and the Zoological Society and delivered them to the City Risk
Manager, along with an outline of the Agreement insurance provisions for his
review in April 1999. This was the first time the City Risk Manager was presented
with any documentation of Zoo insurance coverage.
The City Risk Manager reviewed the certificates and determined the following:
1. The insurers providing the insurance certificates to the Zoological Society
are satisfactory to the City,
2. The coverage and limits of the various types of liability insurance required
by the Management Agreement have been met. To the credit of the
Zoological Society, the coverage provided for General Liability Insurance
is greater than the Management Agreement requirement.
3. The coverage for Errors and Omissions Insurance for Zoological Society
Officers and members of its Board of Directors is greater than required by
the Agreement.
4. Although not required by the Agreement, the Zoological Society, on its
own initiative has procured blanket property insurance covering
Zoological Buildings owned by the City. The Recreation and Park
Department does not cany property insurance for its facilities.
5. The Malpractice Liability Insurance carried by the Chief Veterinarian
with coverage limits of $1,000,000 for each occurrence and $3,000,000
aggregate is probably adequate. The Assistant Veterinarian coverage
limits of only $300,000 each occurrence and $900,000 aggregate could be
increased to the same coverage level for the Chief Veterinarian for a
premium increase of $26 per year and it is so recommended.
6. The determination of the adequacj' of Commercial Crime Insurance
covering employee dishonesty, loss inside/outside, or forgery, requires an
inspection and analysis of the equipment, procedures, and hiring practices
by the Insurance Carrier to define the extent of the risk to be covered. The
meaning of the coverage clauses cited on the certificate are not clear
without viewing the total policy, and the adequacy of the coverage
consequently could not be determined by the Risk Manager.
7. Sections 17.1(e) and 17.1(f) of the Management Agreement, pertaining to
Malpractice Liability of Veterinarians and Commercial Crime Insurance,
respectively, are considered ambiguous by the City Risk Manager. They
provide merely that these policies be carried "in the same general form
131
Office of the Budget Analyst
Section 3.3:
Compliance with Insurance Requirements
and amount as that in effect on the commencement date." We recommend
that a letter of clarification as to the specific details regarding the forms
and amounts required for these policies be provided hy the Zoological
Society to the Recreation and Park Department when the policies are
reviewed.
Section 17.2.5 of the Agreement requires that the Zoological Society and the City
periodically review the limits and tj^pes of insurance carried in light of the general
commercial practice in the Chy and County and to adjust amounts, coverages, and
rates in conformance to comparable risks. No period for review is established in the
Agreement and no review of the actual policies by the City has been conducted since
the commencement date, approximately 6 years ago.
The City Risk Manager recommends that all policies be reviewed routinely every
two years or earlier if circumstances, such as the scope and nature of operations,
are substantially changed. We concur.
Section 17.2.4 of the Management Agreement requires the Zoological Society to
deliver complete copies of insurance policies promptly upon City's request. The
Recreation and Park Department reports that it has never requested copies of
actual policies because the certificates of insurance are all that staff feels is needed
for Property Management Division purposes. As a result, the City has never
received copies of the policies since the commencement of the Management
Agreement.
Accordingly, we recommend that the City, through the Recreation and Park
Commission, request complete copies of all Zoological Society insurance policies for
review under Section 17.2.5. The Zoo Bonds sale of June 16, 1999, should result in a
substantial increase in the scope of zoo operations sufficient to warrant a review by
the City Risk manager and Zoological Society to determine whether the current
policy forms and coverage are sufficient and appropriate.
Section 17.2.4 also requires that the Zoological Society provide the City with
certificates at least 30 days before the expiration dates of expiring policies. The
Property Management Assistant reports that this requirement is never met, despite
numerous requests for the certificates. The City Risk Manager reports that
conformance to this requirement is not a common practice in the insurance industry
and we therefore concur with the Property Management Assistant's
recommendation to require delivery of certificates as soon as possible, but no later
than the expiration dates of the coverage.
132
Office of the Budget Analyst
Section 3.3:
Compliance with Insurance Requirements
CONCLUSIONS
Section 17.1 of the Management Agreement requires that, subject to the approval of
the City Risk Manager as to the insurers and policy forms, the Zoological Societ}7
shall place and maintain throughout the term of the Agreement, and pay the cost
thereof, various types of insurance coverages. The Management Agreement also
provides for periodic reviews of the Zoological Society's insurance coverages, but
does not specify a time period for such review.
Prior to this performance audit, the Zoological Societj7 did not obtain the City Risk
Manager's approval of the insurers, policy forms, and insurance coverages procured,
as required by the Management Agreement, and the coverages were never
reviewed.
The City Risk Manager has recently reviewed the insurance coverages and has
determined that the provision limiting the policy forms and amount of both
Malpractice and Commercial Crime Insurance to those in effect on the
commencement date of the Management Agreement is ambiguous. To remedy this
situation, the Department of Recreation and Park and the Zoological Society should
develop a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to clarify specific amounts of
coverage and minimum limits.
The Zoological Society maintains Property Insurance on City-owned Zoo buildings,
even though such coverage is not currently required by the Agreement. The City
Risk Manager believes that Property Insurance coverage is essential. Because the
Recreation and Park Department does not insure its real property, the City Risk
Manager recommends that the Zoological Society continue to provide such coverage
without interruption, for the duration of the Management Agreement. Therefore, we
recommend that the Department of Recreation and Park and the Zoological Society
develop an MOU providing that the Zoological Society maintain Property Insurance
of City-owned buildings for the duration of the Management Agreement.
We recommend that the Department of Recreation and Park and the Zoological
Society develop an MOU to provide that insurance coverage reviews occur every two
years, or sooner if warranted by a substantial change in circumstances.
RE C OMMEND ATIONS
The Zoological Society should:
3.3.1 Increase the Malpractice Liability Coverage for the Assistant Veterinarian to
the same level as that for Chief Veterinarian. The increased cost of $26 in the
133
Office of the Budget Analyst
Section 3.3:
Compliance with Insurance Requirements
annual premium is minimal compared to the increase in the amount of
coverage.
The Recreation and Park Department and the Zoological Society should:
3.3.2 Develop a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to clarify specific amounts
of coverage and minimum limits for both Malpractice Liability Insurance and
Commercial Crime Insurance.
3.3.3 Develop an MOU providing that the Zoological Society maintain Property
Insurance of City-owned buildings for the duration of the Management
Agreement
3.3.4 Develop an MOU to provide that insurance coverage reviews occur every two
years, or sooner if warranted by a substantial change in circumstances.
COSTS/BENEFITS
Implementation of our recommendations should facilitate the continuing
maintenance of insurance coverage at appropriate levels and costs.
134
Office of the Budget Analyst
Section 3.4: Recreation and Park Commission Representation
at Joint Zoo Committee Meetings
♦ Section 16.3 of the Management Agreement specifies that the "Joint Zoo
Committee," which was established in 1982 prior to the Management
Agreement and which consists of three members of the Recreation and
Park Commission and three members of the Zoological Society's Board
of Directors, shall be maintained throughout the term of the Agreement
and shall hold public meetings at least 11 times per calendar year to
discuss and hear public testimony regarding major policies affecting
the Zoo, including without limitation the setting of fees, new animal
exhibits, animal acquisition and disposition policies, land use, and
capital and operating budgets.
♦ Although the Joint Zoo Committee is an advisory committee without
any legislative authority, the Budget Analyst considers that a balanced
representation between Recreation and Park Commissioners and Zoo
Society Board Directors at Joint Zoo Committee meetings is required
for effective public/private management of the Zoo. Virtually, all major
operational and financial matters and proposals are submitted to the
Joint Zoo Committee for recommendation and referral to the full
Recreation and Park Commission.
♦ Analysis of the minutes of the Joint Zoo Committee meetings for
calendar 3'ears 1997 and 1998 revealed a wide disparity between the
attendance by members of the Recreation and Park Commission and
attendance by members of the Board of Directors of the Zoological
Society. For the 22 meetings reviewed, the Recreation and Park
Commission was fully represented by three Commissioners only 13.6
percent of the time whereas the Zoological Society was fully
represented by three Directors 95.5 percent of the time. Further, nine of
the 22 meetings reviewed included an agenda item that covered budget
issues. The Recreation and Park Commission had full representation by
three Commissioners at only two of the nine meetings, whereas the
Zoological Society had full representation by three Directors at each of
the nine meetings. Such poor attendance by Recreation and Park
Commissioners does not, in the judgment of the Budget Analyst,
provide for effective public/private management of the Zoo.
♦ Accordingly, we recommend that the Recreation and Park
Commissioner members of the Joint Zoo Committee make it a priority
to attend every Joint Zoo Committee meeting.
135
Office of the Budget Analyst
Section 3.4:
Recreation and Park Commission Representation
at Joint Zoo Committee Meetings
Section 16.3 of the Lease and Management Agreement provides that the standing
committee known as the Joint Zoo Committee shall be maintained throughout the
duration of the Agreement. The Committee consists of three members of the
Zoological Society Board of Directors and three members of the Recreation and Park
Commission. The responsibilities of the Committee are as follows:
1. To hold regular public meetings at least 11 times per calendar year.
2. To discuss and hear public testimony regarding major policies of the Zoo,
such as:
a) the setting of fees
b) new animal exhibits
c) animal acquisition and disposition
d) land use, and
e) capital and operating budgets.
The Committee can recommend whether or not the policies and issues it considers
be presented to the full Recreation and Park Commission for formal approval. The
Agenda of each meeting is published in advance of the meeting date and forwarded
to the Committee members.
The Committee members of the Recreation and Park Commission and the Board of
Directors of the Zoological Society each have a vote to exercise at each Committee
meeting. Committee meetings are open to the public and public comments are taken
into consideration.
The Joint Zoo Committee is an essential component in the public/private
partnership concept of management undertaken through the Lease and
Management Agreement between the City and County of San Francisco and the
San Francisco Zoological Society. Virtually all major operational and financial
reports and proposals affecting the Zoo are first submitted to the Joint Zoo
Committee for recommendation and referral to the full Recreation and Park
Commission.
136
Office of the Budget Analyst
Section 3.4:
Recreation and Park Commission Representation
at Joint Zoo Committee Meetings
Attendance Record of Joint Zoo Committee Members
In our professional judgment, full representation at the Joint Zoo Committee
meeting by both Commissioners and Zoological Society Board of Directors is crucial
to effective oversight of the Zoo, consistent with the public-private partnership
concept of management of the Zoo. Accordingly, we reviewed the minutes of 22 Joint
Zoo Committee meetings held from January 1997 through December 1998 and
determined the following (See Table 3.4.1 for details):
Table 3.4.1
Joint Zoo Committee Attendance
No. of Members
Recreation and Park
Zoological Societv
Attending
No. of
Attendee
No. of
Attendee
Each Meetinsr
Meeting's
Subtotal
Meetings
Subtotal
0
2
0
0
0
1
f 7'-'J
7
0
0
2
10
20
1
2
3
_3
_9
21
63
Number of Meetings
22
22
Total No. of Attendees
for the 22 Meetings
m
> The Recreation and Park Commission had three Commissioners in attendance at
only three or 13.6 percent of the 22 meetings whereas the Zoological Society was
fully represented by three Directors at 21 or 95.4 percent of the 22 meetings.
> For the total 22 meetings the City, represented by the Recreation and Park
Commissioners, had a cumulative total of 36 representatives at these meetings
compared to a cumulative total of 65 representatives of the Zoological Society at
the same meetings. This disparity provided the Zoological Society with a
significant advantage in voting power.
Attendance Record Relative to Budget Hearings
On November 20, 1997, the full Recreation and Park Commission considered
legislation to formally end its right to review the Zoo Budget amid much public
controversy. Section 15.9 of the Lease and Management Agreement authorizes the
Commission to provide comments or suggestions to the Zoo Society on a submitted
budget, but can disapprove it only if the revenues are projected to be expended for
purposes inconsistent with the Management Agreement.
137
Office of the Budget Analyst
Section 3.4:
Recreation and Park Commission Representation
at Joint Zoo Committee Me e tings
Based on the discussion recorded in the minutes of the meeting, the Commissioners
felt that their power to review was too limited in view of their responsibility to
respond to adverse public reaction to budget item detail over which they had no
control. Accordingly, the Commission adopted Resolution #9711-156, which states:
"Resolved that this Commission does approve to amend Sections 15.9 and 15.10
relating to the Commission approval of the Zoo's Societ}" budget and acceptance of
its annual audits."
Apparently no further action was taken on the Resolution, since the Management
Agreement of 1993 was automatically extended without modification in 1998.
Because of the Commission's concern over the limited power to review budgets, we
examined the role of the Joint Zoo Committee in the budget review process. Under
Section 16.3, its power is advisory, but it can raise questions and make
recommendations in open public meetings. As a practical matter, more influence
can be asserted at the Joint Zoo Committee level prior to the submission of budget
to the full Recreation and Park Commission. It is unlikely that the Zoological
Societ}7 would forward a budget to the Recreation and Park Commission without
recommendation for approval b\' the Committee. For this reason, we reviewed the
Joint Zoo Committee's meeting minutes to determine the rate of Recreation and
Park Commissioners' attendance when the Meeting Agenda includes budget
matters. Our findings are as follows:
> Nine of the 22 meetings reviewed included an Agenda item that covered
budget issues. The Recreation and Park Commission had full
representation by three Commissioners at only two of the nine meetings
whereas the Zoological Society had full representation by three Directors
at each of the nine meetings.
> For all nine meetings that covered budgetary issues Recreation and Park
Commissioners had a cumulative total of 17 representatives present as
compared to a cumulative total of 27 representatives of the Zoological
Society b)7 its Directors.
> The relative proportion of the Recreation and Park Commissioners and
Zoological Society Directors attending Joint Zoo Committee meetings not
covering budget matters was not significantly different than the
attendance ratios for meetings covering budget matters (Please refer to
Table 3.4.2).
138
Office of the Budget Analyst
Section 3.4: Recreation, and Park Commission Representation
at Joint Zoo Committee Meetings
CONCLUSIONS
The Recreation and Park Commissioners, by attending Joint Zoo Committee
meetings on a part-time basis, have not fully represented the City.
This disparity in attendance provided the Zoological Society with a significant
advantage in influence, which could be utilized to the disadvantage of the City. The
checks and balances of the private/public concept of management cannot, in our
opinion, be achieved without equal participation of the responsible Joint Zoo
committee members.
RECOMMENDATION
We recommend that the Recreation and Park Commission:
3.4.1 Ensure to the extent possible that three members of the Recreation and Park
Commission attend each meeting of the Joint Zoo Committee.
COSTS/BENEFITS
Implementation of our recommendation should improve the effectiveness of the
public/private partnership through a full representation of the City's interests at
Joint Zoo Committee meetings.
139
Office of the Budget Analyst
Table 3. A. 2
u
SO
rs
u
CO
*
c/5
00 Q
ON
On "3
u
C-4 O
- sa
a
•2 — '
o
o
On
On
_ in
~ 3 .2
« s «■
1/3 O
I £
•— <— ,
= O
.5 ^
"S w
C o u
— — -
_ o
o
U
- —
o =
= o z.
■— . u
^3 O O
5 3 2 i
o
Z
i— o t:
0-301
•3
3
o
o
U
o 2 g
O ci a
z .= r
« ° =
if w
2 5
o
U
r*"i r"~, r*"i
O — NnMONMINiN - rn (N rM — rsirvltN i — — i — —
C*i rn
r*1 r"i f~~) r<~)
— f, CM CM
- N M
- tN N
r- r- oo ao oo oo
t — t — - i — i — r~-r-t — r— t — oononoooconooooooooooooononon
a\a&v^aiOOvo\0\^J;^P;W5555555r^$tNi
— r^r-i^ru-ior-ooo — — ■ — — ' rvimTrvriot^oooN — — —
140
Section 4.1: Fundraising & Development
♦ From FY 1993-94 through FY 1998-99, the Zoological Society raised a
total of approximately $47.5 million in contributions, membership
dues, fund raising, and bequests for operations and capital projects.
♦ We found that, in general, the Development Department has been
able to meet its fundraising goals for annual operating expenses. In
addition, the Zoological Society has raised approximately $21 million
of the $25 million required for capital improvements under the lease
agreement, including written, contingency, and verbal pledges.
♦ There is potential for improvement in certain areas. For example,
there is potential to improve the Zoological Society's performance in
recruiting and retaining members. Also, costs for certain fundraising
activities are excessive.
♦ The Zoological Society should implement cost reduction measures,
including eliminating one Events staff position and the Associate
Membership Director position, and continue to evaluate the
profitability of certain events in order to determine whether there is
potential to reduce costs or increase revenues, or whether certain
events should be discontinued.
♦ The implementation of our recommendations would result in savings
of approximately $108,391 annually and would improve the
profitability and performance of the Zoological Society's
Development programs.
As part of our performance audit of the San Francisco Zoological Gardens, we
examined the Zoological Society's fundraising and development functions in order to
evaluate its ability to raise funds for both operating expenses and capital projects
through memberships, individual and corporate gifts, events, Board of Directors
contributions, and bequests.
To accomplish these objectives, we:
> Interviewed personnel in the Development Department, including the
Development Director, Associate Director of Development, Director of Major
Gifts, Events Director and Membership Director;
> Reviewed documentation on the Zoological Society's current and past
fundraising efforts and membership and event literature;
141
Office of the Budget Analyst
Section 4.1:
Fundraising & Development
> Examined budgeted and actual expenditures for the Fundraising, Membership
and Events programs for the current and past five fiscal years;
> Reviewed performance measures such as returns on investment and the number
and level of contributions, grants and memberships, in order to evaluate
fundraising efforts; and
> Conducted research of development practices at comparable zoos and other
similar organizations.
Fundraising for the Annual Operating Budget
As part of the 1996 Strategic Plan for the Zoo, the consulting firms of CLRdesign
Inc. and Schultz & Williams Inc. examined the percentage of annual operating
revenue that came from various funding sources, including admission fees, visitor
revenue, memberships, development, and public subsidies, at 73 zoos and at the 33
zoos with annual operating budgets in excess of $5 million, using data from a 1996
American Zoological Association (AZA) survey. The results of this analysis, as well
as current data for San Francisco Zoo, are shown in Table 4.1.1 below.
Table 4.1.1
Percentage of Operating Revenues from Various Funding Sources,
1996 - 1999
Zoos with Annual
Operating Budgets
Average for
all Zoos
San Francisco
San Francisco
> S5 million (1996)
(19961
7.oo(1997)
Zoo ( 1 9991
Admission Fees
27.5%
35.1%
17.1%
1 7.0%
Visitor Revenue
22.9%
22.7%
27.2%
30.5%
Membership
10.6%
9.7%
10.4%
1 0.3%
Development
7.9%
9.6%
14.3%
15.0%
Public Subsidy
38.0%
36.8%
31.0%
26.0%
As shown m Table 4.1.1, San Francisco Zoo receives a lower percentage of its
operating revenue from admission fees and public subsidies than the other zoos in
the survey. Moreover, these percentages have declined since 1997. The Strategic
Plan concluded that, as a result, this places more pressure on the Zoological Society
to raise operating revenue through its Development, Membership and Visitor
Services Programs.
The Development Department is divided into three programs: Fundraising,
Membe i ship, and Events. Staffing levels for each program are shown in Table 4.1.2
below.
142
Office of the Budget Analyst
Section 4.1:
Fundraising & Development
Table 4.1.2
Staffing Levels by Program,
Zoological Society Development Department
No. of FTEs
Fundraisine:
Development Director
0.5
Associate Director of Development
0.5
Di rector ofMajor Gifts
0.6
Administrative Assistant
1.0
Office A ssistant*
0.5
^iiHtnla! - PiinHraicino
3 . 1
M embership:
Membership Director
0.6
Associate Di rector of M em bership
1.0
Membership Assistants
3.2
Subtotal - Membership
4.8
Events-
Events Director
1 .0
Associate Director of Events
1.0
Office Assistant*
0.5
Subtotal - Events
2.5
Total - Development
10.4
* This position is shared by Fundraising and Events.
All of the positions shown above are responsible for raising money to fund the Zoo's
annual operating budget. The Development Director oversees the entire
Development Department, as well as the Marketing Department. The Associate
Director of Development handles corporate and foundation gifts and writes grant
proposals. The Director of Major Gifts is responsible for generating individual and
Board member contributions. The Membership Director and Associate Director of
Membership recruit and retain members through on-site sales, renewal requests,
direct mail campaigns, telemarketing, the Adopt-An-Animal Program, and other
methods. The Membership Assistants process memberships and staff the
Membership booth located at the Zoo's main entrance. The Events Director and
Associate Director of Events plan, organize, and produce fundraising and member
events such as Night Tour, Twilight Safari, Sex Tour, Zoo Fest, and Zoo Fest for
Kids. As of the writing of this report, the Development Director reported that the
functions of the Associate Director of Development had been modified to include
corporate sponsorships and to exclude foundation gifts. The job title has been
changed to Director of Corporate Relations.
Table 4.1.3 shows the FY 1998-99 operating budgets for the Fundraising,
Membership and Event Programs.
143
Office of the Budget Analyst
Section 4.1:
Fund-raising & Development
Table 4.1.3
FY 1998-99 Operating Budgets,
Fundraising. Membership and Event Programs
F undraising
M
embership |
F vents
REVENUES
1
Individual Contributions
s
5 2 o .oo o
S
- i
$
Foundation Contributions
s
15 0.000
$
-
s
Corporate Contributions
s
2 7 5 .000
s
s
Board Member Contributions
s
4 5 0.000
s
-
$
M embership Dues
s
s
1.4 8 4.000
s
A dopt-an-Animal Program
s
s
1 09.000
$
Fundraising Events
s
s
-
s
6 5 7.7 8 5
-
TOTAL REVENUES
s
1 .3 9 5.0 0 0
s
1 .593,000
S
6 57 ,7 8 5
EXPENDITURES
Personnel Expenses
s
2 16.077
s
2 4 5 .4 4 5
$
10 1.684
Non-Personnel Finfpirt-
0 ffic e Supplies
s
8 . 5 0 0
s
2 9.0 5 0
$
Printing 'Design
14.350
s
3 5 .9 0 0
s
Postage
s
10.000
s
3 2.4 5 0
s
Annual Fund Expenses
$
2 9.000
s
-
$
Donor Relations
s
1 7.5 00
s
s
Other Expenses
S
13.000
s
3 4.7 8 0
$
Computer Consulting
s
s
2 2.04 0
$
Direct M ail M ember Acquisition
s
s
8 0 .00 1
s
Direct Mail Membership Renewal
s
s
4 2.600
$
T clem arkcling
s
s
3 5.000
s
M embership Benefits
s
s
16.018
s
Zoo Views Membership Publication
s
s
1 5 1 .074
s
On-site Membership Sales
s
s
1 7.400
$
M ember Event Expenses
s
s
3 0.2 00
s
Fundraising Event Expenses
s
s
s
2 1 3 .394
Total - Non-Personnel
s
9 2.3 5 0
s
5 2 6 .5 I 3
s
2 1 3 .3 9 4
Capital Campaign Offset
s
(1 12.3 2 0 )
s
(3 1.68 0 )
$
i i
TOTAL EXPENDITURES
s
1 9 6.1 0 7 S
7 4 0 ,2 7 8
3 1 5 .0 7 8
As shown in Table 4.1.3, budgeted revenues exceed expenditures for all three
programs. Based on our review of budgeted and actual net income over the period
from FY 1993-94 through FY 1997-98, we found that the Development Department
has in general been able to meet its fundraising goals for its operating budget.
Fundraising for Capital Projects
Under the lease agreement between the City and the Zoological Society, the
Zoological Society is required to meet two goals with respect to fundraising for
capital projects. The first goal was to raise $10,000,000 from private donations for a
"Founder's Fund" within the first five years of the agreement. This $10 million was
to be allocated as follows: (a) $5 million for capital improvements; (b) $2 million for
144
Office of the Budget Analyst
Section 4.1:
Fund-raising & Development
operating expenses; and (c) S3 million for the Zoological Society's Endowment fund.
Over the four-year period from July 1, 1992 through June 30, 1996, the Zoological
Societ}T raised $11,494,465 towards the Founder's Fund, supplemented by
SI, 570, 092 in Zoological Society transition funds, which were expended as follows:
(a) $6,803,243 for capital improvements (Phase I); (b) $2,044,304 for operating
expenses; and (c) $3,217,010 for the Endowment Fund. The unexpended balance of
$1 million was carried forward to the Phase II Capital Campaign (discussed below).
The second requirement under the lease agreement was for the Zoological Society to
raise $25 million in private donations for the Phase II Capital Campaign "in
accordance with the terms of [the] Agreement." This $25 million would accompany
the $48 million to be generated through proceeds from the 1997 bond measure, for a
total of $73 million for capital improvements. There has been some debate over
whether the Zoological Society has met this second fundraising requirement. This is
because the phrase "in accordance with the terms of [the] Agreement" can be
interpreted in either of two wa3Ts: (1) the initial nve-}rear term of the agreement, or
(2) the terms of the agreement in general. Some have argued that the Zoological
Societ}' should have raised the $25 million within the first five years of the
agreement, or by October 1998. Section 3.1 of this audit report shows that the
Zoological Society planned to raise the $25 million during the first five years of the
agreement. However, according to the City Attorney's Office, the reference to
"terms" does not refer specifically to the initial five-year term, but rather to the
general terms of the agreement, which provides for a maximum term for the
agreement of 99 years.
Because of a lawsuit seeking to throw out the June 1997 election results, the sale of
the $48 million in bonds, which was originally scheduled to take place in the
autumn of 1998, has been delayed until the summer of 1999. The Development
Director reports that the Zoological Society's current goal is to raise the full $25
million in private donations by December 31, 2000. The privately raised funds
would be used to fund design and other p reconstruction activities, as well as post-
construction costs such as furnishings, fixtures, etc.
The Phase II Capital Campaign officially started on June 1, 1997. Contributions to
the Phase II Capital Campaign through December 20, 1999, are shown in Table
4.1.4 below.
145
Office of the Budget Analyst
Section 4.1:
Fund-raising & Development
Table 4.1.4
Contributions to the Zoological Society's Phase II Capital Campaign
through December 20. 1999
. . - -
Payments Received-
Prior to FY 1996-97
S 699.233
FY 1996-97
S 822.563
FY 1997-98
S 4,302,427
and lQOQ.OOrhn, P">n/QQl
S 6.079.049
Total - Payments Received
S 11,903,272
Written Pledse Receivables
S 5,984,577
Contingency Pledges (3)
S 2.016,000
Verbal Pledges (5) !s 1.134.500
Total ; S 21.038.349
As reflected in Table 4.1.4, the Zoological Society raised $21,038,3491 m
contributions through December 20, 1999. Of this amount, $11,903,272 represents
actual cash receipts, and $5,984,577 is written pledges payable between April 1,
1999 and June 30, 2003. Contingency pledges, in the amount of $2,016,000 are
written commitments that are contingent upon the occurrence of a specific event,
e.g., groundbreaking, matching grants, etc. Lastly, the Zoological Society has
received $1,134,500 in verbal pledges.
Capital Fundraising Staff
In addition to raising funds for the Zoo's annual operating budget, certain Zoological
Society staff, including the Development Director, the Associate Director of
Development, the Director of Major Gifts, and the Membership Director, also spend
a portion of their time raising money for the $25 million Phase II Capital
Campaign. In return, the Development Department's operating budget receives a
capital campaign offset of $144,000 annually. In addition, there are three full-time
staff dedicated solely to raising money for the Phase II Capital Campaign: one
Special Projects Director, one Associate Campaign Coordinator and one Associate
Director of Events. According to the Development Director, these three positions are
limited-tenure positions that will be eliminated once the capital campaign has been
completed. The FY 1998-99 budget for Phase II Capital Campaign fundraising
activities is $480,000 (including personnel and the $144,000 offset for the operating
budget).
1 The $14.2 million cited in Section 3.1 as the amount collected thus far in the Capital Campaign was
provided by the Zoo in accordance with accounting principles that exclude contingency and verbal
pledges, and was the amount collected as of June 30, 1999.
146
Office of the Budget Analyst
Section 4.1:
Fundraising & Development
Evaluating the Zoo's Fundraising Efforts
Memberships
Memberships are considered to be the foundation of support for zoos and other non-
profit organizations. Once the Zoological Society converts a visitor to a member,
that member becomes an important source of revenue for the Zoo through
membership dues, contributions and member events. In addition, by cultivating
relationships with its members over time, the Zoological Society hopes to develop as
many members into large donors and Board members as possible. Thus, recruiting
and retaining members is key part of successful fundraising over the long term.
The Zoological Society currently has approximately 29,000 household memberships,
an increase of 7.4 percent (1.2 percent annually) from approximately 27,000
memberships in 1993. According to the Membership Director, the Zoological Societ5r
retains between 60 and 70 percent of its members annually. Thus, on an annual
basis, the Zoological Societ}' must recruit at least 8,700 to 11,600 new members just
to maintain the same number of memberships as the year before. New members are
acquired primarily through on-site sales at the Zoo's Membership booth, as well as
through direct mail campaigns.
As part of the 1996 Strategic Plan, the Zoological Society's success at converting
visitors to members was evaluated by comparing the membership attendance ratios
of San Francisco Zoo and seven other zoos. The zoos surveyed included four
California AZA accredited zoos (Los Angeles, Marine World Vallejo, Oakland and
Sacramento), one zoo with a comparable metropolitan service area (Philadelphia),
and two zoos with comparable annual attendance (Toledo and Atlanta). The Budget
Analyst updated this analysis to reflect 1997 data from a 1998 AZA survey. The
results are shown in Exhibit 4.1.1 below.
Office of the Budget Analyst
147
Section 4.1:
Fundraising & Developmen t
Exhibit 4.1.1
Memberships as a Percentage of Annual Attendance,
San Francisco Zoo and Seven Comparable Zoos. 1997
P h i la 0 e lp hia Zoo
Zoo A tia n ta
San Francisco Zoo
Los Angeles Zoo
Marine World Africa
Sacramento Zoo
O a k la no Zoo
rz
r
■
□ Memberships as V of Attendance
As shown in Exhibit 4.1.1, while San Francisco Zoo ranks fourth among the eight
zoos in converting visitors to members, its membership attendance ratio of 3.3
percent is below the average of 3.6 percent for the seven other zoos. Thus, as also
concluded in the 1996 Strategic Plan, there is potential for the Zoological Society to
convert a higher percentage of its visitors to members as other zoos have, such as
Toledo and Philadelphia.
Fundraising
In FY 1997-98, the Zoological Society received $4,134,153 in operating revenue
through fundraising, memberships, and events. The Zoological Society received 295
individual contributions ranging from $500 to over $25,000 in value and 70
corporate and foundation contributions ranging from $1,000 to over $50,000 in
value. In addition, fundraising events often generate many individual and corporate
contributions in addition to the ticket proceeds. The Zoological Society also has a
"Monarch Association", which consists of 85 individuals who have included the
Zoological Society in their wills.
As part of the 1996 Strategic Plan, the Zoological Societ}r's success at raising funds
for the annual operating budget was evaluated by comparing the dollars raised per
Development/Membership staff person at San Francisco Zoo and eight other zoos,
148
Office of the Budget Analyst
Section 4.1:
Fundraising & Development
based on 1995 data. The zoos surveyed included Portland, Brookfield (Chicago), San
Diego, St. Louis, Cincinnati, Bronx, Lincoln (Chicago), and Phoenix. The results
showed that between $133,000 (Phoenix Zoo) and $700,000 (Portland Zoo) was
raised per staff person, with an average of $357,000 per staff person, compared to
S266,000 per staff person at San Francisco Zoo. Based on the Zoological Society's
audited FY 1998-99 financial statements, revenues from contributions, bequests,
membership dues, and fund raising and events, each Development/Membership
staff person currently raises an average fundraising of $422,370.
Return on Investment
One way of evaluating the Zoological Society's performance in fundraising and
development is to examine return on investment (ROI), which represents revenue
as a percentage of expenses. Based on our research, we identified the following
recommended minimum returns on investment for three major categories of
fundraising: (a) Memberships - 288 percent, (b) Events - 200 percent, and (c) Major
Gift Fundraising - 500 to 550 percent.2 The Zoological Society's actual returns on
investment for FY 1993-94 through FY 1997-98 for each of these activities are
shown in Table 4.1.5 below. It should be noted that the amounts shown under
"Expenses" in Table 4.1.5 include allocated administrative costs in order to more
accurately reflect the true costs of each of these activities.
Table 4.1.5
Zoological Society Returns on Investment for Fundraising Activities,
FY 1994-95 through FY 1998-99
. it -. . ■ : " t-j, 7--, ;-- — — - — —
1997-98 Actual
1 996-97 Actual 1 995-96 Actual
! 994.05 Actual
1993-94 Actual
MEMBERSHIP
1
Revenues
S 1.468.542 S 1,427.557 | $ 1.442.214
S 1.377,622
S 1.242,419
Expenses
S 933.024 | S 1.001.692 \ $ 1,325,750
S 1.326.528
S 1,180,774
Return on Investment
157.4%
142J>%J 108.8%
103.9%
105.2%
EVENTS
. — , — »it* —
l
Revenues
S 733.266
S 449,097 | S 441,994
S 357,460
S 358.326
Expenses
S 414.719
S 392.963 ! S 336.583
S 295,469
$ 209.664
Return on Investment
1 76.8%
114J%| 131.3%
- • v ■ v.- •..
121.0%j 170.9%
FUNDRAISING
1
Revenues
S 1.932.345
$ 1,797.537 | S 975.188 | S 1.771.643 1 S 1,078.278
Expenses
S 247,459
$ 307,861 | S 277.079 | S 162,037 | S 189.244
Return on Investment
780.9%
583.9%i 352.0%i 1093.4%| 569.8%
2 Adapted from "ROI Analysis", published by the Nonprofit Management Group of Baruch College of
the City University of New York (CUNY), 1993.
149
Office of the Budget Analyst
Section 4.1:
Fundraising & Development
As shown in Table 4.1.5, the returns on investment for Membership and Events
have been well below the industry standards of 288 percent and 200 percent,
respectively, in each of the past five fiscal years, indicating that the Zoological
Society may be incurring excessive costs for these two activities. On the other hand,
Major Gift Fundraising has had returns on investment that have been above the
industry standard of 500 to 550 percent for the past two fiscal years. In response to
the Budget Analyst's ROI analysis, Zoo management has stated that the Zoo's
allocation of overhead expenses to the Development Department has been more
than is warranted and with proper allocation, the ROIs for Membership and Events
exceed industry standards.
The Budget Analyst also examined the returns on investment for specific events in
order to identify whether certain events were more profitable than others. We found
that three events, Zoo II Lion House Party, Zoo Run and Zoo Fest, have consistently
had returns on investment that were below the industry standard of 200 percent. In
fact, according to the Events Director, Zoo Run was discontinued in FY 1998-99
precisely for this reason. On the other hand, Twilight Safari, Sex Tour, and Zoo Fest
for Kids have generally had returns on investment in excess of 200 percent. Based
on this information, the Zoological Society should continue to evaluate whether
certain events should be discontinued due to their lack of profitability, or if there is
any potential to reduce costs or increase revenue for these events in order to
improve their returns on investment.
Lastly, the Budget Analyst examined returns on investment for the Zoological
Society's capital fundraising campaigns, including the Founder's Fund and the
Phase II Capital Campaign. Based on actual fundraising expenditures of $574,349
and revenues of $13,064,557 between FY 1992-93 and FY 1995-96, the Zoological
Society had a return on investment of 2,275 percent for its fundraising activities
related to the Founder's Fund. Based on projected fundraising expenditures of
approximately $2,059,912 (based on actual fundraising expenditures through April
1, 1999) and projected revenues of $25 million, the Zoological Society will have a
return on investment of approximately 1,214 percent for its fundraising activities
related to the Phase II Capital Campaign. As such, it appears that the Zoological
Society is well above the industry standard of 550 percent in its capital fundraising
activities.
Suggestions for Reducing Costs
While the Development Department appears to be meeting its fundraising goals in
general, there is still potential for improvement in certain areas. Based on our
discussions with Zoological Society personnel and our examination of the
Department's staffing levels and line item expenditures, we have identified the
following areas where costs could be reduced in the Development Department:
150
Office of the Budget Analyst
Section 4.1:
Fundraising & Development
> According to Development staff, the San Francisco Zoo is somewhat unique in
that it has Events staff dedicated solely to organizing and producing events. In
other organizations, events are often organized and produced by fundraising
staff and/or third party contractors. As such, we recommend that one Events
position (the Associate Director of Events) be eliminated and that part of the
responsibility for organizing and producing events be transferred to existing
staff in the Fundraising and Membership Programs. Ehminating this position
would result in annual savings in salaries and fringe benefits of approximately
$39,752.
> Based on our review of staff functions in the Membership Program, we
recommend dividing and transferring the current duties of the Associate
Membership Director, which include oversight of the Adopt-an-Animal Program
and the planning of member events, among the three existing full-time
Membership Assistants, and eliminating the Associate Membership Director
position. This would result in savings in salaries and fringe benefits of $41,639
annually.
> Through vendor discounts, there may be opportunities to consolidate and reduce
printing, design, postage and office supply costs, which are spread throughout
several programs and line items in the Development Department's budget.
Reducing these costs, which total $265,525 for FY 1998-99, by 10 percent would
result in savings of approximately $27,000 per year.
Implementing the above recommendations would result in savings of $108,391
annually and would improve the profitability and performance of the Zoological
Society's Development programs.
CONCLUSIONS
We found that, in general, the Development Department has been able to meet its
fundraising goals for annual operating expenses. The Zoological Society has raised
approximately $21 million of the $25 million required for capital improvements
under the lease agreement.
There is potential for improvement in certain areas. For example, there is potential
to improve the Zoological Society's performance in recruiting and retaining
members. There are also indications that the Department may be overstaffed and/or
that staff members are not generating as much revenue as would be expected. Also,
costs for certain fundraising activities are excessive.
The Zoological Society should implement cost reduction measures, including
eliminating one Events staff position and the Associate Membership Director
position, and continue to evaluate the profitability of certain events in order to
151
Office of the Budget Analyst
Section 4.1:
Fundraising & Developmen t
determine whether there is potential to reduce costs or increase revenues, or
whether the}7 should be discontinued.
The implementation of our recommendations would result in savings of
approximately $108,391 annually and would improve the profitability and
performance of the Zoological Society's Development programs.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The Zoological Society should:
4.1.1 Implement measures to improve and evaluate member recruitment and
retention.
4.1.2 Implement cost reduction measures in the Fundraising, Membership and
Events Programs as recommended in this section.
4.1.3 Continue to evaluate the profitability of certain events to determine whether
they should be discontinued, or if there is any potential to reduce costs or
increase revenues for these events. Zoo management has advised the Budget
Analyst that all events are periodically reviewed in order to evaluated their
profitability.
COSTS/BENEFITS
Implementation of the recommendations in this section would result in savings of
approximately $108,391 annually and would improve the profitability and
performance of the Zoological Society's Development programs.
152
Office of the Budget Analyst
Section 4.2: Marketing & Public Relations
♦ The Zoo Society spent over $4.2 million on marketing over the past
six years, and its marketing budget increased by 136 percent (27
percent annually) between FY 1993-94 and FY 1998-99.
♦ During the same time period, attendance increased by only 19
percent (3.8 percent annually). In addition, in two years when
marketing expenditures increased, attendance decreased, and in
another year when marketing expenditures declined, attendance
increased.
♦ Moreover, in the late 1980s, when the Zoo did not have a marketing
budget, there were some years in which attendance exceeded
1,000,000 visitors versus the actual attendance of 842,958 visitors for
FY 1998-99.
♦ Since large marketing expenditures do not necessarily result in
increased attendance, the Zoo Society should limit its marketing
budget to 5.0 percent of annual operating expenses.
♦ The Zoological Society should ensure that the corporate sponsorship
program is consistent with its mission of conservation, education,
and recreation. Zoo management has advised the Budget Analyst
that each corporate sponsorship program is reviewed to insure its
compatibility with the Zoo's mission.
As part of our performance audit of the San Francisco Zoological Gardens, we
examined the Zoological Society's marketing and public relations program in order
to evaluate whether its objectives, use of media, and staffing levels were consistent
with best practices and with marketing and public relations practices at similar
organizations.
To accomplish these objectives, we:
> Interviewed personnel in the Marketing Department, including the Marketing
Director and the Director of Public Relations;
> Reviewed key Marketing Department documents such as publicity reports,
marketing strategic plans, media timelines, newsletters, advertising contracts,
and other documents.
153
Office of the Budget Analyst
Section 4.2:
Marketing & Public Relations
> Examined budgeted and actual expenditures for the Marketing Department for
the current and past five fiscal years;
> Reviewed performance measures such as attendance records and visitor survey
results in order to evaluate the impact of marketing expenditures; and
> Conducted research of marketing practices at comparable zoos and other similar
organizations.
Background
Marketing and public relations for the Zoo have been the responsibility of the
Zoological Society since even before the public-private partnership between the City
and the Zoological Society was created in 1993. The Zoological Society hired its first
Marketing/Public Relations Director in 1993. In 1994, the functions of marketing
and public relations were separated when the Zoo Society added a second position, a
Public Relations Director. A third position, a Marketing Communications Manager,
was also added at that time. In 1999, the Marketing Department still consists of the
same three full-time positions. In addition, the Zoo Society has a Graphics Curator,
who dedicates a portion of her time to designing graphics and published materials
for the Marketing Department.
The responsibilities of the Marketing Director include developing marketing plans,
creating and implementing advertising campaigns and promotions, and cultivating
corporate sponsorships. The Marketing Director reports directly to the Director of
Development. The Public Relations Director, who reports to the Marketing Director,
is responsible for maintaining relationships with the media, arranging media
events, writing press releases, tracking Zoo publicity, and other duties. The
Marketing Communications Manager, who also reports directly to the Marketing
Director, is the editor of Zoo Views, the Zoo's quarterly membership publication,
and is responsible for designing and maintaining the Zoo's map and website.
The goal of marketing is specifically to increase attendance. While the goal of public
relations is primarily to create awareness and to build the Zoo's image, positive
publicity, such as feature news stories on new or popular Zoo exhibits, can boost
attendance as well. The main difference between the marketing and public relations
functions is that marketing utilizes mostly paid advertising to attract attention,
while the exposure obtained through public relations is free of cost. For instance, in
FY 1997-98, the Zoo was featured in (a) 146 stories in the San Francisco Chronicle
and Examiner newspapers, (b) 149 news stories on television; (c) two National
Geographic Specials; (d) six books; and (e) four special productions, including a
Disney film. This publicity, although not always positive, was free to the Zoo (except
for the salary and benefits of the Public Relations Director).
154
Office of the Budget Analyst
Section 4.2:
Marketing & Public Relations
The Marketing Department attempts to meet its objectives in a variety of ways,
including:
> Extensive print, outdoor, television and radio advertising (paid and donated) to
promote special exhibits, events and/or the Zoo in general;
> Obtaining exposure in local media through feature stories and other media
coverage;
> Obtaining sponsors for special exhibits, events and other activities held at the
Zoo throughout the year;
> Holding marketing events, aimed to boost attendance during off-peak periods
(e.g., "Fall Fest" in September, 1998, "Boo at the Zoo" in October, 1998, and the
Gorilla Naming Contest in November, 1998);
> Creating a unified visual identity and packaging for on-site graphics, published
materials and advertising.
Evaluating the Impact of Marketing Expenditures
The Marketing Department's budgeted and actual expenditures from FY 1993-94
through FY 1997-98 are shown in Table 4.2.1 below:
Table 4.2.1
Marketing Department Budgeted vs. Actual Expenditures,
FY 1993-94 through FY 1997-98
B udceted
Expenditures
A ctua I
Expenditures
V a nance
% Over/
Under
Budget
FY 1997-98
S 861.280
S 85 3.190
S 8,090
-0.9%
FY 1996-97
S 456.180
S 74 3,80 8
S (2 87,628 )
6 3.1 %
FY 1995-96
$ 859,125
S 794,318
S 64,807
-7.5%
FY 1994-95
S 489.234 | S 606,1 04
S (11 6,870)
2 3.9%
FY 1993 -94
S 280.200 ! S 3 74.902
S (94,702)
3 3.8%
A verase
S 5 89.204 1 S 674,464
S (8 5.261)1 2 2.5 %
As indicated in the table above, the Marketing Department has overspent its
original budget and/or received budget increases in three of the past five fiscal
years.
155
Office of the Budget Analyst
Section 4.2:
Marketing & Public Relations
The FY 1998-99 budget for marketing is $885,012. The Marketing Department's
line item expenditures from FY 1993-94 through FY 1998-99 (budgeted) are shown
in Table 4.2.2 below.
Table 4.2.2
Marketing Line Item Expenditures,
FY 1993-94 through FY 1998-99
FY 1998-99
FY 1997-98
FY 1996-97
FY 1995-96
FY 1 994-9^
FY 1993-94
Budgeted
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Personnel
s
178,514
S
145.224
S
153,909
S
151,862
S
129,962
S
89,738
Advertising
s
499,002
S
484,233
S
379,594
S
448,664
s
343,820
s
142.610
Professional Fees
s
72.200
S
82,711
S
52.651
S
21,364
s
39,398
s
38,818
Printing/Design
s
42,000
s
42,777
S
48,748
S
50,427
s
43,922
s
69,010
Graphics Expense
s
40,000
s
33,873
S
39,495
S
51,620
s
3.278
s
Public Relations
s
15.000
s
17,614
S
15,978
S
12.346
s
s
Photography
s
1 1 ,000
s
10,401
S
17,991
S
13,736
s
s
Special Events
s
2,400
s
3,745
S
5,631
S
4,209
s
12,564
s
8,974
Miscellaneous
s
24,896
s
32.612
s
29,811
S
40.090
s
33,160
s
25,752
1
Total
s
885,012
JL
853,190
s
743,808
S
794,318
s
606,104
s
374,902
As shown in Table 4.2.2, the Zoo Society spent $4,257,334 for marketing between
FY 1993-94 and FY 1998-99 (budgeted). Marketing expenditures increased by 136
percent overall, or an average of 27 percent per year, between FY 1993-94 and FY
1997-98. The largest increase was in the Zoo Society's first full fiscal year of
managing the Zoo, in FY 1994-95, when actual expenditures increased by 62
percent, from $374,902 to $606,104. Advertising costs, by far the largest expense (56
percent of current budgeted expenditures), increased by $356,392 (250 percent or an
average of 50 percent annually), from $142,610 to $499,002, during the same time
period.
Benchmarks
In 1996, the Zoo Society retained the firms of CLRdesign inc., a zoological planning
and design firm, and Schultz & Williams, Inc., a marketing and economic analysis
firm, to complete a strategic plan for the Zoo. This report stated that zoos with
aggressive marketing programs allocate between four and seven percent of their
annual operating budgets for advertising expenses.
156
Office of the Budget Analyst
Section 4.2:
Marketing & Public Relations
In addition, as part of that study, four California AZA accredited zoos (Los Angeles,
Marine World Vallejo, Oakland and Sacramento), one zoo with a comparable
metropolitan service area (Philadelphia), and two zoos with comparable annual
attendance (Toledo and Atlanta) were selected as a basis for comparison to San
Francisco Zoo. Using data from a 1996 AZA survey, the consulting firms found that
the seven comparable zoos spent between 2.3 percent and 12.2 percent of their
operating budgets on advertising expenditures, with a median expenditure of 4.2
percent of operating costs. The results of this survey are shown in Table 4.2.3 below:
Table 4.2.3
Advertising Expenditures as Percentage of
Annual Operating Budget at Comparable Zoos1
Zoo
Percentage
Marine World Africa ( V a 1 1 ej o )
1 2 .2%
Philadelphia Zoo
5.8%
Los Angeles Zoo
4.6%
Sacramento Zoo
3.8%
Toledo Zoo
2.8%
Oakland Zoo
2.3 %
Zoo Atlanta
n /a
M e d i a n
4.2%
On the contrary, the report stated that San Francisco Zoo spent only 2.0 percent of
its operating budget on advertising, therefore implying that San Francisco Zoo is
spending less than it should be in these areas. However, this statistic is misleading
because it does not take into account the expenditures incurred by zoos for
marketing activities other than advertising. For example, the Zoo Society's FY
1998-99 budget includes $499,002 for paid advertising, which represents 3.7 of the
Zoo Society's operating budget. However, the Zoo Society's total marketing budget
for FY 1998-99 is $885,012, or 6.5 percent of operating expenditures. In addition,
San Francisco Zoo receives a substantial amount of in-kind (free) advertising and
promotion.
In addition, the Budget Analyst contacted the California Academy of Sciences,
located in Golden Gate Park, in order to find out how much this organization spends
on marketing. The Academy of Sciences reported that its FY 1998-99 budget for
marketing is $589,000, significantly lower than the Zoo's current total marketing
budget of $885,012, while the Academy of Sciences' budgeted FY 1998-99
attendance of 900,000 is slightly higher than the Zoo's budgeted attendance of
1996 AZA Survey, as cited in CLRdesign inc. and Schultz & Williams, Inc. Strategic Plan, 1997 -
2004, November, 1996, Table 7.
157
Office of the Budget Analyst
Section 4.2:
Marketing & Public Relations
880,000. Also, the Academy of Sciences' marketing budget of $589,000 (including
advertising) represents just 3.3 percent of its overall operating budget.
The Effect of Marketing Expenditures on Attendance
Since the primary goal of marketing is to increase attendance, the Budget Analyst
examined the effect of marketing expenditures on Zoo attendance. Table 4.2.4 shows
the Zoo's annual attendance from the first fiscal year in which the Zoo Society
assumed management of the Zoo (FY 1993-94) through FY 1998-99 (projected).
Table 4.2.4
Annual Attendance at San Francisco Zoo,
FY 1993-94 - FY 1998-99
% Change from
Year
Attendance
Prior Year
FY 1993-94
690.145
FY 1994-95
73 1 .232
6.0%
FY 1995-96
822,465
1 2.5%
FY 1996-97
870,962
5.9%
FY 1997-98
826,769
-5.1%
FY 1998-99 (Projected)
822,822
-0.5%
As previously noted, marketing expenditures increased by 136 percent (27 percent
annually) from FY 1993-94 through FY 1998-99. As shown in Table 4.2.4, during
the same time period, attendance increased by approximately 19 percent (an
average of 3.8 percent annually).
Exhibit 4.2.1 shows the annual percentage change in marketing expenditures
versus the annual percentage change in attendance over the six-year period from
FY 1993-94 through FY 1998-99.
158
Office of the Budget Analyst
Section 4.2:
Marketing & Public Relations
Exhibit 4.2.1
Percentage Changes in Marketing Expenditures and Attendance
San Francisco Zoo. FY 1993-94 - FY 1998-99
6 0.0% — j
5 0.0%
4 0.0 % — \
3 0.0 %
2 0 0 %
FY 19 9 4-95
FY 19 9 5-96
FY 1 9 9 6 - 9 7
FY 1 9 9 7 - 9 8
FY 1 9 9 6 -9 9
(Projected)
□ % Change in Marketing Expenditures K3% Change in Attendanc
As illustrated in the graph above, there does not appear to be a strong positive
correlation between marketing expenditures and attendance. For example, both
marketing expenditures and attendance increased from FY 1993-94 through FY
1995-96, but in FY 1996-97, attendance increased by 5.9 percent despite a reduction
in marketing expenditures of 6.4 percent. In FY 1997-98 and FY 1998-99,
attendance declined by 5.5 percent overall, despite an overall increase in marketing
expenditures of 19 percent. Also, a significant increase (62 percent) increase in
marketing expenditures in FY 1994-95 resulted in only a marginal increase in
attendance of 6.0 percent in that year.
Some possible explanations for these discrepancies are the effects of weather,
publicity, new animal exhibits and other factors on attendance. For example, the
Zoo experienced a 30 percent decline in attendance during the third quarter of FY
1997-98 (January through March, 1998), which could be attributable to the effects
of El Nino and/or the bad publicit}' resulting from the proposed admission fee
increase. The increases in attendance during FY 1995-96 and FY 1996-97 could be
attributed in part to the extensive free publicity that the Zoo received on the June,
1997 bond measure, the white alligator exhibit and the alligator from Mountain
Lake Park between April, 1996 and November, 1997. As these examples illustrate,
159
Office of the Budget Analyst
Section 4.2:
Marketing & Public Relations
many factors other than marketing expenditures have an impact on attendance.
Thus, it can be concluded that increasing the Zoo's marketing budget will not
necessarily lead to an increase in attendance.
This conclusion is further supported by the Zoo's experience with marketing and
attendance during the late 1980s. The Zoological Society reports that funding was
earmarked for advertising for the first time in FY 1993-94. The Zoo Society reports
that, prior to 1993, the Zoo relied primarily on free publicity in order to attract
attention and thereby increase attendance. However, despite the lack of funding for
marketing and advertising prior to FY 1993-94, the Zoo had some years in which
annual attendance exceeded 1,000,000 visitors. Exhibit 4.2.2 below shows the Zoo's
annual attendance for the years up through the Zoo Society's takeover in 1993.
Exhibit 4.2.2
Annual Attendance at San Francisco Zoo
FY 1987-88 - FY 1993-94
FY 1 987-88 FY 1 986-89 FY 1 989-90 FY 1 990-91 FY 1991-92 FY 1 992-93 FY 1 993-94
As shown in Exhibit 4.2.2, attendance was over 1,000,000 from FY 1987-88 through
FY 1989-90, peaking at 1,160,000 in FY 1988-89. These were years in which the Zoo
Society did not have a separate advertising or marketing budget. The severe decline
in attendance in the early 1990s can most likely be attributed to the overall
deterioration of the Zoo, rather than to the Zoo's lack of advertising. For example, in
1992, the Zoo was threatened with losing its accreditation from the AZA due to the
poor conditions at the Zoo. The publicity surrounding the creation of the
public/private partnership between the Zoo Society and the City in 1993 may have
160
Office of the Budget Analyst
Section 4.2:
Marketing & Public Relations
also contributed to poor attendance in the early 1990s. Attendance reached its
lowest point in FY 1993-94 with 690,145 visitors.
Therefore, large expenditures on marketing do not necessarily lead to increased
attendance. Many other factors, including weather, new animal exhibits, public
perception, and the quality of the visitor experience and the animal collection, also
significantly impact attendance.
Market Penetration
To compare San Francisco Zoo's attendance and market penetration with that of
other comparable zoos, the Budget Analyst updated an analysis completed as part
of the above-cited 1996 Strategic Plan. Table 4.2.5 shows the annual attendance,
metropolitan service area population, and market penetration rates for San
Francisco Zoo and for seven comparable zoos, based on 1997 data from a 1998 AZA
survey.
Table 4.2.5
Annual Attendance, Metro Population & Penetration Rates
at San Francisco Zoo and Seven Comparable Zoos. 1997
Zap.
Attendance
Metro
Population
% Penetration
Toledo Zoo
802,648
470,000
170.8%
Sacramento Zoo
450,000
1.800.000
25.0%
Zoo Atlanta
688.000
3.000,000
22.9%
Philadelphia Zoo
1,100,000
5,400,000
20.4%
Oakland Zoo
350,000
3,000,000
1 1 .7%
Marine World Africa (Vallejo)
1,100.000
10.000.000
1 1 .0%
Los Angeles Zoo
1,342,000
14.000,000
9.6%
Median
20.4%
San Francisco Zoo
870,962
6,000,000
14.5%
Table 4.2.5 shows that, even though San Francisco Zoo advertises more than most
of the seven other zoos, San Francisco Zoo has penetrated only about 14.5 percent of
its market, compared to a median of 20.4 percent for the seven other zoos. It is also
interesting to note that the zoos that spend the highest percentage of their
operating budgets on advertising (Marine World Africa, Los Angeles Zoo and
Philadelphia Zoo) have among the lowest penetration rates. In addition, Toledo Zoo,
which ranks fifth in terms of advertising expenditures, has the highest market
penetration rate. These statistics further indicate that high advertising and
marketing expenditures do not always lead to high market penetration.
161
Office of the Budget Analyst
Section 4.2:
Marketing & Public Relations
Visitor Survey Results
The Marketing Department conducts visitor surveys twice per year (one in the
spring and one in the summer) in order to collect data on visitor demographics,
visitor experience, and many other variables. Some of the questions asked in the
survey concern visitors' exposure to the Zoo's advertising. Exhibit 4.2.3 below shows
the percentage of respondents and the percentage of Bay Area residents who had
recently seen or heard advertising for the Zoo prior to their visit, based on the
results from the surveys conducted in August of 1994 through 1998.
Exhibit 4.2.3
% of Visitors Exposed to Zoo Advertising,
1994 - 1998
6 0 0 % — |
19 9 6
As shown above, the percentage of respondents who had been exposed to Zoo
advertising increased from 25 percent in August, 1994, to 48 percent in August,
1996, but then declined to 28 percent in August, 1997. In August, 1996, 57 percent
of Bay Area residents had been exposed to Zoo advertising, but this percentage
dropped to 30 percent in August, 1997 and increased to 43 percent in August, 1998.
A review of the survey results also showed that television and newspapers seemed
to be the most effective means of advertising the Zoo, followed by street banners and
billboards.
Again, visitor awareness of the Zoo's advertising campaigns does not correlate well
with marketing and advertising expenditures. Advertising and marketing
expenditures dropped in FY 1996-97, but 1996 was the year with the highest
162
Office of the Budget Analyst
Section 4.2:
Marketing & Public Relations
number of positive survey responses. Also, despite increased expenditures in FY
1997-98, the percentages exposed to Zoo advertising fell.
Furthermore, the visitor surveys are not necessarily a reliable indicator of how
many visitors are exposed to Zoo advertising. When responding to these survey
questions, visitors are not required to differentiate between paid advertising and
free publicity. Thus, it is possible that many of the visitors who respond positively to
having seen Zoo advertising may have in fact seen a feature story in the newspaper
or on the news, which would have been free of cost to the Zoo. This is supported by
the fact that the Zoo received a great deal of free publicity in August of 1996, the
same month in which the highest percentage of visitors and Bay Area respondents
had reported seeing or hearing Zoo advertising, concerning the white alligator
exhibit and the alligator found in Mountain Lake Park. Moreover, the Zoo receives a
substantial amount of free advertising each ye&Y (estimated at $700,000 in FY 1998-
99), so it cannot be determined whether the advertising that respondents may have
seen was paid or free advertising. Therefore, even if a large percentage of survey
respondents consistently claimed that they had seen Zoo advertising, this would not
necessarily prove the effectiveness of paid advertising and would not warrant an
increase in the Zoo's advertising budget.
Placing a Limit on Marketing Expenditures
The Zoo Society's significant increase in marketing expenditures over the past six
3Tears did not result in consistent and significant increases in annual attendance.
Nonetheless, a marketing program is still a necessary part of improving the public's
perception of the Zoo. A marketing program will be especially important over the
next several years as the capital program gets underway, as the promotion of the
Zoo's new and upgraded exhibits will be needed in order to attract visitors and help
restore attendance to its former levels of over 1,000,000 annually. Moreover, it could
be argued that marketing has a latent effect on its audience, i.e., providing
consistent and repeated exposure to advertising and promotional campaigns over a
long period of time may lead to more significant increases in attendance over the
long term. Lastly, advertising in the form of billboards and regular print ads has
more of a long-lasting effect than one-time television or newspaper stories, since
this type of advertising results in consistent and repetitive exposure.
However, there are many factors other than advertising that affect attendance, such
as weather, free publicity, past visitor experience, and overall public perception.
Since increasing marketing expenditures is not a proven way of increasing
attendance, it would be prudent to place a limit on how much of the Zoo Societj^'s
operating budget is allocated to marketing. The Budget Analyst recommends that
the Zoo Society limit marketing expenditures to 5.0 percent of the Zoo Societj^'s total
operating budget.
163
Office of the Budget Analyst
Section 4.2:
Marketing & Public Relations
The Zoo's FY 1998-99 annual budget for marketing of $885,012 represented 6.5
percent of its operating budget of $13,666,914. However, as reported by Zoo
management, the $885,012 figure includes funding for Graphics ($40,000) and
Professional Fees ($72,200) that are not related to Marketing activities. Excluding
those activities from the Marketing budget results in a Marketing budget of
$772,812. In order to reduce this percentage to 5.0 percent or approximately
$683,346, the Zoo Society would have to implement some cost-cutting measures.
The Budget Analyst has the following suggestions:
> Certain functions performed by the three existing Marketing positions could be
eliminated or transferred to other Zoo departments in order to allow the
elimination of one of these three positions. In addition, certain extensive
management reports completed by the Public Relations Director, such as the
Annual Publicity Report, do not provide much value and should no longer be
completed.
> The Zoo Society should consider conducting visitor surveys only once per year
rather than twice per year. In addition, there may be other opportunities to
consolidate and reduce printing and design costs, which are spread throughout
several line items in the Marketing Department's budget.
Reducing marketing expenditures to 5.0 percent of the Zoo Society's annual
operating budget would result in savings of approximately $89,466 per year. As of
the writing of this report, the Zoo Society had reported that its FY 1999-00
marketing budget represented 5.0 percent of the Zoo Society's total operating
budget. Nonetheless, the cost reduction measures noted above should still be
implemented.
Corporate Sponsorships
Another responsibility of the Marketing Department is to obtain corporate
sponsorships for the Zoo. Corporate sponsors agree to provide funding for new
exhibits, maps, membership newsletters, signs, and banners, in return for free
exposure through the Zoo's sponsorship recognition programs. In FY 1997-98, the
Zoo Society raised $297,575 through corporate sponsorships. The Zoo Society's FY
1998-99 budget for sponsorship revenue is $250,000. The Zoo Society has a
sponsorship consultant, who receives up to 10 percent of sponsorship revenue for
each new sponsor it attracts. The Zoo currently has 17 corporate sponsors, including
well-known companies such as Ford Motor Company, Eastman Kodak Company,
Mervyn's, Haagen-Dazs, Pepsi-Cola, and See's Candies. At the writing of this
report, the Zoo Society reported that the corporate sponsorship program was being
transferred to the Development Department.
164
Office of the Budget Analyst
Section 4.2:
Marketing & Public Relations
The updated Strategic Financial Plan completed by Schultz & Williams in March,
1998 stated that "corporate sponsorships and marketing partnerships represent one
of the single largest revenue opportunities that remain untapped by zoological
institutions." While this may be true, the Zoo should also be careful not to appear as
if it is overly exploiting its resources or that it is attracting corporate sponsors
whose images may not be consistent with the Zoo's stated missions of habitat
preservation, environmental education and conservation. This could lessen the
visitor experience and worsen the Zoo's public perception. As such, the Zoo Society
should ensure that the corporate sponsorship program is consistent with its
mission.
CONCLUSIONS
The Zoo Society spent over $4.2 million on marketing over the past six years, and
its marketing budget increased by 136 percent (27 percent annually) between FY
1993-94 and FY 1998-99.
During the same time period, attendance increased by only 19 percent (3.8 percent
annually). In addition, in two years when marketing expenditures increased,
attendance decreased, and in another year when marketing expenditures declined,
attendance increased.
Moreover, in the late 1980s, when the Zoo did not have a marketing budget, there
were some years in which attendance exceeded 1,000,000 visitors versus actual FY
1998-99 attendance of 842,958 visitors.
Since large marketing expenditures do not necessarily result in increased
attendance, the Zoo Society should limit its marketing budget to 5.0 percent of
annual operating expenses. This would save over $89,466 annually. In addition, the
Zoo Society should ensure that its corporate sponsorship program is consistent with
its mission.
165
Office of the Budget Analyst
Section 4.2:
Marketing & Public Relations
RECOMMENDATIONS
The Zoological Society should:
4.2.1 Limit marketing expenditures to no more than 5.0 percent of its annual
operating budget.
4.2.2 Implement cost-cutting measures in its Marketing Department in accordance
with the guidelines in this report.
4.2.3 Ensure that the corporate sponsorship program is consistent with the Zoo
Society's mission.
COSTS/BENEFITS
Establishing a 5.0 percent limit on marketing expenditures would enable the Zoo
Society to reduce expenditures by approximately $89,466. It cannot, be determined
how a reduction in marketing expenditures would affect annual attendance, given
that there does not appear to be a correlation between marketing expenditures and
attendance. Nonetheless, if the Zoo Society focuses its efforts more on obtaining free
advertising and publicity, as recommended in this report, there could bo a minimal
or even a positive effect on attendance.
166
Office of the Budget Analyst
Section 4.3: Cash Handling;
♦ The Budget Analyst audited the procedures employed by the Zoo to
ensure the security of cash and cash handlers. In general, we found
that those procedures need to be significantly improved. We have
provided Zoo management with our recommendations concerning
safety and security of cash handling operations on a confidential
basis in order to prevent sensitive information from being made
public. Zoo management has provided the Budget Analyst with a set
of actions that have been and will be taken to increase the security
of cash handling operations.
♦ The Zoo's Cash Handling Manual defines a cash overage or underage
as 1) a deviation of more than $5 from the amount of sales recorded
on the cash register, or 2) a one percent deviation from the amount
of sales recorded on the cash register. Our review of cash handling
revealed that for the month audited, 81 of 577 cash register tallies, or
approximately 14 percent, resulted in cash overages or underages.
Further, only 46 percent of the underages and overages resulted in
issuance of a Cash Handling Notification, although procedures
provide that every cash overage or underage should result in a Cash
Handling Notification.
• The Zoo Cash Handling Manual we originally audited was not
current and consistent, nor was there a control in place to ensure
that each Cash Handler received a Cash Handling Manual. During
the course of this performance audit, Zoo management developed a
new Cash Handling Manual that meets auditing standards and has
instituted a control to ensure that the Cash Handling Manual is
issued to all Cash Handlers.
• The Budget Analyst conducted audit tests to evaluate the following
cash handling operations for September 1998:
Reconciled cash receipts to bank deposits, computer summaries
of cash received, and bank deposit statements;
Reconciled Daily Sales Summaries to the General Ledger and to
the Zoo's financial statements;
Traced the opening statement balance to the ending balance on
the prior checking account reconciliation. Traced deposits in
transit on prior reconciliations to deposits on the current
statement.
No irregularities were noted as a result of the foregoing audit tests.
167
Office of the Budget Analyst
Section 4.3:
Cash Handling
As part of our performance audit of the San Francisco Zoological Gardens, we
examined the Zoological Societ3''s cash handling activities of the Visitor Services
Sections of the Zoo to determine whether the Zoo's cash handling policies and
procedures provide adequate control over the handling, safeguarding, and recording
of cash collections and to determine whether those policies and procedures are being
followed at the cash handling locations throughout the Zoo and at the Cash Control
site.
To accomplish these objectives, we:
> Reviewed policy statements, flow charts, and written procedures for the Zoo's
Cash Handling function;
> Observed cash handling activities;
> Examined Daily Summary written entries to note any adjusted entries without
proper justification;
> Compared statistics on cash receipts and sales per monthly summaries to
determine whether they balance to the financial statements;
> Traced daily deposits and transfers on bank statements to summaries of cash
receipts, sales, and statistics;
> Traced checking account opening statement balances to the ending balances on
prior reconciliations.
Background
Cash handling operations at the Zoo are divided into two different revenue sources,
with the following expected revenues for FY 1998-99:
Visitor Services cash collection activities include the sale of admission tickets,
concession tickets, food, and gifts. Development Department cash collection
activities include 1) membership sales; 2) receipt of estate bequests and corporate,
foundation, and individual donations; and 3) sale of Adopt-an-Animal memberships.
Only a small percentage of the Development Department transactions involve
currency.
Visitor Services
Development Department
$6,932,139
4.288.525
$11,220,664
Total
168
Office of the Budget Analyst
Section 4.3: Cash Handling
The scope of this cash-handling audit was confined to cash collections, deposits, and
security. Cash was considered to be any type of payment for goods or services,
including coin, currency, checks, money order, or credit card.
The Visitor Services functions is organized in to five service areas, as follows:
Food Services
Merchandise
Children's Ticket Booth
Admission Gates
Administration
The service areas are staffed by 72 full-time and 23 part-time positions. Of these 95
total positions, 85 positions are Cash Handlers involved in sales to Zoo visitors.
The Zoo's Finance Director has primary management and oversight responsibility
for cash handling at the Zoo.
Policies and Procedures
The Zoo has a Cash Handling Manual that provides procedures for cash handling at
the following sites: Food Services, Merchandise, Children's Ticket Booth, and
Admission Gates. Although the Manual contains an easy-to-read, generally sound
set of cash handling procedures, improvement is needed in the following areas:
• Food Services, unlike the other cash handling sites, does not require the
customer's signature on the cash register receipt in the event of a refund;
• The procedures for charge card refunds only address Merchandise sites, and
not the sites of the other three customer cash handling sections;
• The procedures for overages apply only to Food Services sites;
• The procedure for endorsement of checks is written only for Merchandise
sites;
• Procedures for customer claims of incorrect change apply only to Food
Services sites;
• The procedure requiring that all receipts from voided sales and refunds are to
be bound with a rubber band and turned into the Visitor Services office in the
cash bag applies to all of the sales sites except the Children's Zoo Ticket
Booth.
• Procedures do not address cash handling requirements for the Carousel.
We found that the Cash Handling Manual had not been widely distributed among
the managers of the cash handling sites or among the cash handlers. In fact, the
acting Food Service Manager, who is also the Operations Manager, and the Gift
Shop Manager were unaware of the existence of the Manual. Further, these two
managers have stated that the Cash Handling Manual had not been issued to any
169
Office of the Budget Analyst
Section 4.3:
Cash Handling
new employee under their control since the last cash-handling workshop, which
they believe occurred sometime in 1997.
All Zoo employees who participate in cash handling should be issued a Cash
Handling Manual that has been updated to incorporate the above noted
improvements and afforded the opportunity to receive answers to questions
concerning the various procedures contained therein, including emergency
procedures.
We recommend that Zoo management hold a workshop on cash handling, issue each
employee involved in cash handling a Manual, and institute procedures that each
new employee is issued a manual and has the opportunity to learn correct cash
handling procedures.
Cash Register Procedures
The Cash Handling Manual requires that a receipt is to be given to each customer
who makes a purchase. However, based on our observations, we determined that
Cash Handlers do no consistently issue a receipt to customers for purchases. The
purpose of issuing a receipt to customers for purchases is to reduce the risk of 1)
employees pocketing funds and 2) customers being short-changed. According to the
Zoo's Finance Director, Zoo management recognizes empkwees are not consistently
providing cash receipts, and that several control measures are being developed to
deal with the problem. In particular the Finance Director stated that signage will
be posted to inform customers that they will receive a free product if they do not
receive a receipt with their purchase.
Following the Cash Handling workshop previously recommended, we recommend
that Zoo management institute the control of informing Zoo visitors that if a Cash
Handler does not provide the visitor with a receipt at the time of purchase, the
visitor will be given a free product.
The Cash Handling Manual defines a cash underage or overage as 1) a deviation of
more than $5 from the amount of sales recorded on the cash register, or 2) a one
percent deviation from the amount of sales recorded on the cash register. In order to
determine the magnitude of cash variances, we reviewed the results of the cash
tallies for September 1998. We determined that 81 of the 577 cash register tallies
during the audit period, or 14 percent, reported cash count variances (either an
overage or an underage). The total amount of underages was $915.14 and the total
amount of overages was $460.88. A total of 41 different Cash Handlers were
responsible for the cash variances.
170
Office of the Budget Analyst
Section 4.3:
Cash Handling
To reduce the incidence of cash count variances, we recommend that Zoo
management institute the following controls:
• Conduct unannounced mid-day audits of registers;
• Consider placing video cameras at strategic cash handling points, as is done
at the Oakland Zoo.
The Cash Handling Manual states that cash handlers are to receive a Cash
Handling Notification, which is a warning of violation, for each underage or
overage. In order to determine whether this control was being practiced, we
reviewed the file containing the Cash Handling Notifications for September 1998.
We determined that of the 81 cash variances for that period, only 37 Cash Handling
Notifications had been issued, which is approximately 46 percent of the total cash
variances.
Cash handling managers, when informed about the disparity between cash
variances and Cash Handling Notifications, stated that cash variances are often due
to faulty register ke}rs and honest mistakes. However, no documents exist to
account for such occurrences when cash variances exist.
We recommend that Zoo management follow the cash handling procedures
requiring that a Cash Handling Notification be issued for each cash variance, or
that notation be made to the cash handling file explaining that the cash variance
was due to an equipment problem or other extenuating circumstance.
Security Procedures During Transport of Funds To and From
the Cash Control Site and at the Cash Control Site
The Budget Analyst audited the procedures employed by the Zoo to enhance the
security of cash. In general, we found that those procedures need to be significantly
improved. We have provided Zoo management with our recommendations
concerning safety and securhy of cash handling operations on a confidential basis in
order to ensure that sensitive information that could possibly be detrimental to the
safety and security of its employees involved in cash handling is not made available
to aid any unauthorized or unlawful action concerning its cash handling operations
Cash Reporting
The Budget Analyst conducted audit tests to evaluate the following cash handling
operations for September 1998:
• Reconciled cash receipts to bank deposits, computer summaries of cash
received, and bank deposit statements;
171
Office of the Budget Analyst
Section 4.3:
Cash Handling
• Reconciled Daily Sales Summaries to the General Ledger and to the Zoo's
financial statements;
• Traced the opening statement balance to the ending balance on the prior
checking account reconciliation. Traced deposits in transit on prior
reconciliations to deposits on the current statement.
No irregularities were noted as a result of the foregoing audit tests.
CONCLUSIONS
The Budget Analyst audited the procedures employed by the Zoo to ensure the
security of cash and cash handlers. In general, we found that those procedures need
to be significantly improved. We have provided Zoo management with our
recommendations concerning safety and security of cash handling operations on a
confidential basis in order to prevent sensitive information from being made public.
Zoo management has provided the Budget Analyst with a set of actions that have
been and will be taken to increase the security of cash handling operations.
Zoo Cash Handlers do not consistently provide customers with purchase receipts,
increasing the possibility of an irregularity.
The Zoo's Cash Handling Manual defines a cash overage or underage as 1) a
deviation of more than $5 from the amount of sales recorded on the cash register, or
2) a one percent deviation from the amount of sales recorded on the cash register.
Our review of cash handling revealed that for the month audited, 81 of 577 cash
register tallies, or approximately 14 percent, resulted in cash overages or
underages. Further, only 46 percent of the underages and overages resulted in
issuance of a Cash Handling Notification, although procedures provide that every
cash overage or underage should result in a Cash Handling Notification.
The Zoo Cash Handling Manual we originally audited was not current and
consistent, nor was there a control in place to ensure that each Cash Handler
received a Cash Handling Manual. During the course of this performance audit, Zoo
management developed a new Cash Handling Manual that meets auditing
standards and has instituted a control to ensure that the Cash Handling Manual is
issued to all Cash Handlers.
172
Office of the Budget Analyst
Section 4.3:
Cash Handling
RECOMMENDATIONS
The Zoological Society should:
4.3.1 Update the Cash Handling Manual to incorporate needed improvements cited
in this audit report section.
4.3.2 Hold a workshop on cash handling, issue each employee involved in cash
handling a Cash Handling Manual, and institute procedures that each new
employee is issued a manual and has the opportunity to learn correct cash
handling procedures.
4.3.3 Following the Cash Handling workshop previously recommended, institute
the control of informing Zoo visitors that if a Cash Handler does not provide
the visitor with a receipt at the time of purchase, the visitor will be given a
free product.
4.3.4 Follow the cash handling procedures requiring that a Cash Handling
Notification be issued for each cash variance, or that notation be made to the
cash handling file explaining that the cash variance was due to an equipment
problem or other extenuating circumstance.
4.3.5 The Zoological Society's financial auditors should review the implementation
of increased cash handling safety and security as part of their audit of
internal controls.
COSTS/BENEFITS
The recommendations contained in this section will enhance cash handling controls.
Enhancing the security and safety of the cash handling operation will require some
costs. However, the benefit of safety and security enhancement far outweigh the
cost of reasonable measures that can be taken.
173
Office of the Budget Analyst
Section 4.4: Purchasing
♦ The Zoo has a rudimentary purchasing system, with the only
significant control being payment for goods and services. Functional
managers, such as the Commissary Manager (Animal Food), the
Merchandise Sales Manager, and the Food Services Manager all
order, receive, and authorize pajrment for goods from various
vendors of their selection, primarily without contracts. This is a
fundamental violation of the "separation of duties" internal control
principle.
♦ The primary control over the purchasing system, authorization for
payment, is exercised by the Finance Director, who until very
recently also had primary staff responsibility for the purchasing
function. This also is a fundamental violation of the "separation of
duties" internal control principle.
♦ The Zoo does not have a purchasing policy and procedures manual
that provides rules and guidance on economic quantity ordering,
documentation requirements, inventory requirements, internal
control requirements, and which also includes a purchasing "code of
ethics."
♦ According to the Zoo's new Deputy Director, who has recently
assumed responsibility for the management of purchasing, the Zoo
will transition to a formal purchasing system, with centralized
ordering, commencing upon completion of the new Zoo warehouse,
which is scheduled for completion in late 2000.
As part of our performance audit of the San Francisco Zoological Gardens, we
examined the Zoological Society's system for purchasing materials and supplies,
animal food, merchandise for resale, and restaurant food items in order to
determine whether the controls over the purchasing system are reasonably
adequate.
To accomplish these objectives, we:
> Interviewed the Zoo managers who are involved in the procurement of goods
including the Finance Director, the Merchandise Sales Manager, the
Commissary Manager (for animal food), the Food Services Manager, and the
Zoo's Deputy Director.
174
Office of the Budget Analyst
Section 4.4:
Purchasing
> Reviewed the methods used by the managers to select vendors, place orders, and
submit invoices to Finance for pa3Tment.
> Reviewed prices paid for selected items to prices paid for like items hy the City
Purchasing Department in order to determine whether there are opportunities
for savings by the Zoo.
Current Purchasing System
The Zoo purchases goods in the categories and approximate amounts shown in
Table 4.4.1, on an annual basis. Each individual manager who receives goods from
an outside vendor orders such goods, annotates the invoice with the account to be
charged, and transmits the invoice to the Finance Department for paj^ment. Thus,
the Commissary Manager orders, receives, and authorizes payment for animal food,
the Food Services Manager orders, receives, and authorizes payment for food items,
etc. Proper internal purchasing controls require separation of ordering, receiving,
and payment responsibilities.
The Zoo does not have a policies and procedures manual which would establish
general policies for selecting vendors, determining economic ordering points, etc.,
and describing how the system is to work. We recommend that the Zoo develop a
purchasing policies and procedures manual that covers the foregoing purchasing
activities and that also covers contract documents, internal control requirements,
documentation requirements, inventory requirements, and a code of ethics.
Table 4.4.1
Categories of Goods and Supplies and Amounts Ordered Annually
Category
Amount
Office Supplies
$78,535
Computer Supplies
2,400
Other Supplies
45,814
Printing/Design Supplies
323,051
Building Materials
200,654
Animal Supplies
480.649
Total
$1,131,103
Although there are some contracts with vendors for goods, such as for some Food
Services needs, the large majority of the Zoo's purchasing needs are satisfied by
vendors without contracts. Some of these purchasing relationships have existed for
many years. We recommend that the Zoo review these long-standing relationships
Office of the Budget Analyst
175
Section 4.4:
Purchasing
to determine whether prices, quality, and delivery/shipment services are
competitive with the market and to establish contracts where such contracts would
be beneficial.
Controls Over Purchasing
A formal purchasing system, such as that used by the City, employs strict
separation of the primary duties of placing orders, receiving goods, and effecting
payment as a preventive control to provide reasonable assurance that no one
individual will defraud the organization. However, controls have costs, and with
smaller organizations, such as with the Zoo, it is often necessary to combine some
duties and employ compensating controls, such as close supervision and
unannounced audits, to lessen the opportunities for irregularities.
At the outset of our audit, the Zoo's purchasing function was the primary staff
responsibility of the Director of Finance, who is also one of the authorized
signatories in the Zoo's system of requiring dual signatures on checks. Combining
those responsibilities in one staffperson unnecessarily, in our opinion, violates the
separation of responsibilities control. As of the writing of this report, primary staff
responsibility for the Zoo's purchasing has been assumed by the recently appointed
Deputy Director.
Prices Paid for Goods
In order to determine whether there are opportunities for price savings in Zoo
purchasing, we asked the City's Purchasing Department to review a sample of the
prices paid by the Zoo for a variety of food items. That review, as shown below in
Table 4.4.2, reveals that in some cases the City is obtaining better prices than the
Zoo, and vice versa.
176
Office of the Budget Analyst
Section 4.4:
Purchasing
Table 4.4.2
Food Pricing Comparison
Description
Zoo Price
CCSF Price
CCSF Details
Burgers
Bacon
Hot Dogs
Mixed Vegetables
Hamburger Buns
Hot Dog Buns
Oranges
Apples
Strawberries
Grapes
Bananas
S37.80/cs
26.90/cs
15.35/cs
21.80/cs
.89/pkg
1.00/pkg
13.48/cs
13.21/cs
13.50/cs
10.00/cs
.83/lb
S1.41/lb
2.19/lb
1.70/ lb
15.88/cs
.95/pkg
1.68/pkg
15.00/cs
16.00/cs
9.00/cs
17.00/cs
12.50/cs
80% lean USDA Choice, Round
sliced, skinless, 16-18 slices/lb
all beef, < 20% fat, 8 links/lb
20 lb/cs, grade A
12 count/ egg type
12 count/ egg type
113 count/ choice
1 13 count/ red delicious
#1 table, 12 pints/cs
Table Seedless Red
Roughly 40 lb/cs, green tip
We have included prices for commodities based on disparate sizes in some cases,
such as cases versus pounds, since the Zoo can obtain quotes based on the
quantities used by the City. Some of the price differences of like measures may be
due to differences in quality. However, we believe that the Zoo may be able to
achieve some savings by comparing its purchasing requirements to like commodities
procured by the City and taking the necessary steps to obtain better prices, where
applicable. For those commodities not procured by the City, such as some types of
animal food, we recommend that the San Francisco Zoo check its prices with those
obtained by the Oakland Zoo or with another zoo.
A New Purchasing System
The position of Deputy Director/Chief Operating Officer, which had been vacant for
more than one year, was recently filled. The incumbent, who has a background in
administration and operations, has begun to implement new methods and
procedures to strengthen the Zoo's operations. According to the Deputy Director, the
Zoo plans to centralize the purchasing system as soon as planned facilities are
completed to accommodate centralized ordering, receiving/quality assurance, and
warehousing. The Deputy Director believes that a purchasing position created to
perform those functions would pay for itself, and we agree that such a centralized
purchasing system would be a significant improvement over the existing purchasing
system.
Office of the Budget Analyst
177
Section 4.4:
Purchasing
CONCLUSIONS
We found that the Zoo has a primitive purchasing system that has worked
reasonably well but lacks controls to provide reasonable assurance that
irregularities or fraud will not occur or that optimal prices, quality of goods, and
delivery/shipment services are being obtained.
According to the Zoo's Deputy Director, the Zoo intends to transition to a centralized
purchasing system, which should, in our opinion, significantly improve the Zoo's
purchasing function.
The Zoo Society should implement the recommendations made in this section, which
are enumerated below.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The Zoological Society should:
4.4.1 Establish a formal purchasing system with written procedures and with a
Zoo employee responsible for placing purchase orders based on valid purchase
requisitions and economic order quantities for common items.
4.4.2 Review major recurring supply requirements and establish contracts with
vendors, where such contracts would be beneficial to the Zoo.
4.4.3 Review prices paid by the City and by another zoo for items used by the San
Francisco Zoo in order to obtain the best value available.
!
COSTS/BENEFITS
Implementation of the recommendations in this section would result in savings of
an undetermined amount annually, would improve the operation of the Zoological
Society's purchasing function, and would provide reasonable assurance against
fraud.
178
Office of the Budget Analyst
Exhibit 3.1.1
< c
a* ^ a? J? ^ ^
et? O n*. -^r «-) —
CT> r-- -w <y> (M ^j-
— 10 m »o oi n
^ >t * * *
CM CM «o CM —
mo *o r»-. CM CD
r»." U» N N -
a^ ;s a~ a^ a^
SOV N N O
CD O — CO
O — -c CO
^ *<~ 5* ^
C\J 8 8 8 S
cr> o co to O
8 8 8 8
CO CNJ —
o *n —
CO to to — o
O fM O « O
to r*- — o
co co «o o «o
o co — ot *<t
(VJ N O (O
to eg co to eo~
8
^ o
— o> co a> r*.
O —
— — — CM
— - cm
Si
O CO O CO o
8 8 8 8
o o o o
iO m w> iO
oj c*> o «r> vo
— - — _ CD CM CD
U"> CM — - 0»"
O <o <"> O o
O O N «n o
°. 1 ^ °.
cn rC V ©» cp~
r- o O <3>
CO_ — «0 « CM
ui" <m" o* oi n
m cm (O
CO CO CD O O tO
^ ^ as ^ ^
co
to* n o* « o
c —
5 §
■=> —
o o
■a 2>
c "o
re r>
cl a
X
LU
8
8 8 8 8
o o o <n m o
■c cO co r*- r*» —
CO CO -V CM CO tD
^ ^ ^ ^ ^
cm tf> S c?> r-*
o o o o o
8 8 8 8 8
0 0*000
CO O «D »*> "cr
CJ>_ CO CM CM CO
CO —
>s ^ a* a£ a? ^
~~ CO O CM
O «o co o
8
o
8
CO d> "W O
— o <o o O
o ^ o
«> «T «f o
wO co O «► r-.
— « o* «o
ccT - O W CM
a? a£ a? a?
8a» tf> o <o
eo o r** r--
ID V O CO Ol"
K «£> O 'T o
n - tv o o
<3>_ co_ cm_ o o
cm" «o* o* cd
SCO Q CO "T
r-^ 6 «o_ «o
■^r" — -~ co" oT cm
a* a^ a£ a* a^
o> — « CO —
tO O T O CO
CO o to — CO
8
s
5
8 8 8 8
O Q W> to IO ©
r— O CO co eO to
co_ "*r_ O Cm cm in
co — to"
8 8
CO CO Oi CM
ur> co t»» co co_
V CM «M CM*
c
ts
CM
>»
o>
IB
o>
o
Q.
o
o
o
Q
OT
H.
CD
"co
CO
OT
o
Q_
log
T>
isal
o
o
5
o
Q.
r^j
c
O
O
_o
cl
o
CO
CO
o
O
u
CO
c:
CD
re
er
eu
o
an
ISC
Pa
CO
o
"D
CO
CO
ts
■D
o
ul
c
co
z>
c
CL
o
CO
X
oo
OT
LU
o
S
1X1
8
a^ ^ a^ a^ a^ ^
r-^ CD - N Oi N
u> CO CM CO
— r^. co V o I — "
CM CM trf> —
§ 00000
8 8 8 8 8
8 8 8
o o_ o o_ o_
T CT> CO CO CM 0>
N CD rt — tf) V
co O r-» cm —
8 8
2~
CD
8
c * " rvi
m o> u_
- O co
S
I 8
o w o> ^
2-i iS -
- e -o 2
a> 9 w T>
— <y> u. s
= tO to
-3 c
cr 3
CO
CM
CM
s?"
<
o
— - x>
o
>^ >s »:
to c« n e v
<Z> «o rt c\i
to' « e ti -
▼ — « « Oi
S8528
^ a> o • o
V o •* «
O O O O CSJ
O «D O*
c= C C — »
o o o • ■*
5 " = c
-i -i * = §-
S O Q ^ «
■= 2 s • «=
uj < " E
x <
S
CM
I—
o
■D
C
Ll_
•»
CO-
CM
CD
-o
2
s
E
o
O
ion
_o
c
8
c
1
CNI
E
o
CD
c
t3
Q
o
179
Exh ib i t 3.1.
rtives 5 Assumptions of Financial Projections
Attendance
724,000 to 1,080,000 ever five years, 8%/yr
Membership
27,000 to 47,000
Average member dues
$45 to $51 per year
Ann1 i p 1 contribut 3 ons
$940,000 to $1,655,000 per year
Other income
$150,000 to $500,000 per year
Visitor Services
^J,UoJ,UUU lO $;> , 1JU , UUU
Per cap, V.S.
$3.65 to $4.75
Admissions
$1,688,000 to $3,780,000
Per cap, admissions
$2.36 to $3.50
Annual expenses
increasing 3% - 6%/vr above po^q
City subsidy
$4. -mill inn n=r yf*?rr; fivps y^-^
Transition funding
up to $2 million ever 4 years
180
San Francisco Zoological Society
Capital Expenditures - Founder's Fund/Zoo 2000
April 23, 1999
Exhibit 3.1.3
Contributions: Fiscal Year S2'93
Fiscal Year S3/94
Fiscal Year 94/95
Fiscal Year 95/96
Fiscal Year 96/97
Total Contributions
S. F. Zoo Estate
Society Contributions Beouests
S 4,529,721 S 304,311
3,042,568 471,119
700,000 550,524 1,124,429
242,500 374,748 144,445
942,500
8,507,661
2,044,304
8,507,651
942.500
11,494,465
Expenditures: Fiscal Year 91/92
Fiscal Year 92/93
Fiscal Year 93/94
Fiscal Year 94/95
Fiscal Year 95/96
Fiscal Year 96/97
Fiscal Year 97/98
Fiscal Year 98/99
Sub-Total
Phase II, Capital Campaign inciude in above Revenues (Donor Request)
Contribution to Endowment Fund
Tranisition Funds Used in Operations from Estate Bequests
Tranisition Funds Provided by San Francisco Zoological Society
Balance of Founder's Fund.
144,040
319,005
2,039,021
2,476,348
1,168,143
428,040
228,065
580
6,803,243 6,803,243
4,691,222
(1 ,000,000)
(3,217,010)
(2,044,304)
1,570,092
Wayn^Reading, Finance pjKCtjr
Date
131
Exhibit 3.1.4
c
c
a
CO CDI
>- eni
co ai
> 2!
> 2
ID <0
OJ (31
> 5' ro'
— ci cm
3 C2! —
in COI
o) mi m
> 2' cm"
ra ni cm
m toi
O cm
— C
-ri CD co
— CI — CM
S C|
i/> tol
m — — —
o
o
IS
cm a m —
r— c r— T
CM CD CD —
MO in Cm
— — c
o in cd
r- c
CD O
r*- cd
N O n
Cm to Cm cj
tt cm in
eo" co~
— co
O CM
uoin"— CMOao»-r*-co
Tracer— m — inoo
tocDtnintsicDcncDcD
to O TT o
r*- co co r— t m
co cd to to m
t tt pm co t —
co cd n. in"
to m cd
m c
to to
co cm
O TT tO CO
w- CD CM to
in n - io
to m co co
u- O —
r- to
••— CM
— CM
cn cd
to —
to in —
— O O
o co cd
m —
cm t ro
— cm tt in cd
cm tt r— in
to *~ cm ro
cd r— cd co o
CM
co m
O TT
co —
in r-~ ro
cm in cm in
Otcdcmcmtt — to
co to cm co r- to rr
— r"> in r*
m cm to in tt
cm p~ to o cm
CD tO O — T
> CDI
T O CO CO
CO CD CD Tr
in o co cm
CO to to c
— CO o
in cm m
ococdcocd — uoro — toocoro
mo-- CMCocMr-ocMTinc-
to t o tt co" co to" •—" " f— ' o* to* c" cm' cm m -<r
O O M (N - N N -<t — o uo co cm ro
' — tO »— ■> — CM
OCDinTr^TrcncMr-rrcorN-oO"— cOTininrNi
noCDincOTruocDTTrcMto — cd — CDCDm — — co
t o t m t t - w a o o t o in o - m in n
r— " cd " * o vn to ro" r- t o cm* co"
•-iDnnOT'-fiiOin'-f
— — — — o CO
s - - m s
— r— to to O
— m — —
ro r~-
h- <:
o
o
o
CM
n
c
Cm
ro
TT
in
to
eo
CD
c
CM
ro
uo
to
r —
co
CD
o
O
o
O
O
o
O
o
c
O
ro
m
c
o
ro
co
ro
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
O
O
o
O
o
o
O
o
o
o
o
o
c:
o
o
o
in
m
m
m
CO
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
O
c
o
o
o
o
O
o
o
c
a
c
o
O
c
o
O
o
o
C
c
C
o
o
to
to
to
to
to
r—
r—
r*
r—
r—
r»
r—
r—
r~
r—
r-
r-
r*»
r*.
r-
o
o
o
c
O
o
o
o
o
c
r—
2
6
6
6
o
6
6
6
6
e
O
6
o
6
6
o
6
6
©
O
6
6
CM
r>
6
r~-
eo
c
CM
ro
O
O
C
o
CM
CM
Cm
CM
CD
CD
CD
o
o
o
o
o
c
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
a
o
o
a
o
o
a
O
c
o
o
O
o
o
o
o
O
o
O
c
□ IK
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CXI
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
Cm
CM
CM
CM
CO
ro
CO
kCC
o
o
C
C
o
O
O
o
O
O
o
o
c
c
G
c
o
o
o
o
o
c
O
o
o
O
c
O
c
c
o
c
C
c~
ro
ro
co
CO
co
ro
co
ro
co
co
co
ro
co
ro
CO
CO
co
ro
CO
CO
n
CO
co
n
ro
co
ro
ro
ro
ro
CO
co
ro
CO
O X
00 =
o
_c
c
o
rsi
x —
LLI
co
c c —
oo d <
~ 0) > CD "5 o
< £ £ §■£ S •
~ — _ cc — <D ">
— ra a _ o c. c
"> u S P
^ -5 ui c. _
- < C
o -n £
c. u c
o c
c o
o o
CM CM
o o
o o
rsi rsl
o —
2 O
o o
o o
o o
CM CM
o o
o o
INI INI
a -
cl a
CO
N
5L -
o
C3 ^)
"O > 0) -q
CO ® o o
C « = > C
S 5 2 » o
5 c » o
o .2 "5. •"= =
C > "~
CO < h" > u.
id i
l/l — —
— otJ O —
c >
o
2 oo
5 2
U 5
^ x N ;
co — ^
— CO o
iS c ? o
o c I ^
CD — O
° S > I > O
a — G - O _
o o — ~ s co
?=-»- =
2 o .o c- o
c o
' ^~ ~ yu u — —
2r"2ra£.£'SE2
o < 3
S j= "? = rj £ 7=
— co —
C U < =
5 u
— m « o
■ < ^ UL
— — CO
O iu 3
182
ro oo
=5 <
5 5
■2 5 ^ *
ro ^- —
00 —
1 2
co" c
CO 3 >
c < <
SAN FRANCISCO ZOOLOGICAL SOCIETY
PHASE II - CAPITAL EXPANSION PROGRAM
CAPITAL CAMPAIGN REVENUES
September 10, 1999
Prior Year Receipts
i otal
Revenues
699T233
Fiscal Year ending June 30, 1997
Fiscal Year ending June 30, 1998
Fiscal Year ending June 30, 1999
822,563
4,055,425
3,803,088
"otal Cash Received
Pledge Receivables at June 30, 1999
9,380,309
4,794,102
"otal Pledges and Cash at June 30, 1999
S 14,174,411
Wayne heading. Finance Dirpet6f ("September 10, 1S9Q
183
Exhibit 3.1.6
SAN FRANCISCO ZOOLOGICAL SOCIETY
DHASE II - CAPITAL EXPANSION PROGRAM
CAPITAL EXPENDITURES
Aorii 25, 1999
Fiscal Year
Fiscal Year
Fiscal Year
Total
1996/97
1997/98
1998/99
Description
06730/97
06730/98
03/31/99
Capital Campaign Expenses
741,986
5 256,607
S 274,450
S 210,929
Committee To Rebuild The Zoo
328,855
258,000
60,855
Strategic Plan
78,882
78,882
Lion Cub Exhibit
296,063
292,675
3,387
Geese Sculpture
14,358
14,353
Old Capybara Exhibit Renovation
1,532
1,532
_
Bilabong Exhibit
590
590
_
Aye Aye Exhibit
57,430
67,430
Phase II Project Design/Architect
742,320
334,950
407,370
Phase II Project Manaoement
672,258
318,220
354,038
Phase II Project - Zoo Administration
337,024
249,003
88,021
Safari Trams
57,528
57,528
Computer System
449,559
309,532
140,027
Lorikeet Exhibit
410.019
410,019
Primate Discovery Center Remeshina
331,216
248,455
82,751
^sian Elephant Renovation - (Calle)
36.406
15,172
21,234
i_i'l Puffer Train
757,073
112,737
644,335
Renovations
12.845
12,845
Carousel Maintenance
5,836
5,711
125
Aviary Lead Abatement
30,400
30,400
Renovation Mother's Building
3,240
3,240
_
Food Service Renovation
1,357
1,357
_
Other Renovations
4,665
4,666
-
Avian Conservation Center
4,945
4,945
Kodiak Bear
42.388
28,525
13,862
Rainbow Meadow
48.785
34,197
14,588
Chimpanze Renovations
5,055
6,055
Pygmy Hippo Pool Renovation
5,030
1,899
4,131
Animal Resource Center (ARC)
111,221
65,742
45,479
Renovation of Lion Exhibit-West Exterior
3,175
3,175
Anteater, Tapir and Condor (A-1)
144,555
144,555
Interest Expense
27,272
27,272
Total Expenditures
S 5,775.870
S 912.645
S 2,561,322
5 2.201.903
2.202,483
238,201
WayneR
4/25/99
184
Exhibit 3.1.7
Page 1 of 5
—
CO
— in
oc -r
c*f o" o
m »n
p-i oj — i
C r m
r-~ co o
o —
r-j rvi —
O O CO
in o
m rn
<N c-i o
C C\* Ov
t-~ CO o
CO in O!
O in CO
m r*t rr
r-^" rn" rr
r- o r-j o
T - IN N
O O r*J T
— T
(N h «
m — r- r-j
O <n oo fN
— c\ —
O T
o c m r~-
o rn in ro
o m -r o
vo t— -3-
r-> T \D O -i
m n Ni c;
rc (
o ~3
in Si
m S ix
x-T oi ^
O CCI cc
O O Ol ^ CO O!
fao o 5; t— ^
0_ Ci r-~ rv.
ly CO -5"
Z g =" >
O r~> t> Ol
— IN O
s= —
© =1 S
r- m <&
cm —1 55
-
© C2
n =: ss
mi
C> —I
r— r-H
cc -r
la
o n ol J
©J Ov
ON N n <M
r~ m — —
r— >n —
in ? <1 M
C\ O sO
CO in — ^ O
— " fs n N
«
— — - l*i
> ^ -—
_ — VI
I/) o
— cc >
— j_ ZJ ^
u o s &
« = £
= O £
y u -
U i)
z -
m r» » «n ol t\
m eN o m o ex
C5 <~S. — . °* Pi S
co" r-T cT rM_ o]
■a- o — co o ^
— o ce r- ci
o — o oi
TT O
r-T t~
ol v-i
c> o r~ <n w->|
o r~ ■"r co
oj o <n
crC o" r-" r-i
CO O O
- c rj <N
co ^* co r~
w\ m m —
CO SO f"} *o
-5- cc — o o
T3- m -c* ^ «
o" co" — " o o
sc n C c
ci
o
CO
<^ _"
M O — <r\ -O
m (N O n
\S » - - N
o v~, o ■ — ■
x r c o
w-i ir\ »ri m ^
O C*l -T CO
— r~ P-
CO CC I •
ei) Si
^ — — -
= S 2
■§ >> = =
o o >- ?
eft — _
= c » i =
8 « 5 t
3 = o o =
< ^ < 2 U
S; "
c c ^
in -3-1 v»
cn vo o £:
°. = =°J s
M C Hi --■
N (N Jvl i:
VC — Oil |^
r- m r~|
cc — rn
O — —
Ol rv,
■n
,090
,500
=>3
~>
m
cs
-a*
°.
O
tC
>*1
r— vd oj
cc_ o_ col
r»^" —1
T T O
o *n os|
O v= vol
cc co m
w in cc] ^
1 Ol K §
? o o
(N P-
IN
cc
04 r^"
W-j CO —
r— cn o
CC v-i
co" cc
TT "I O
oj o r*-y
«£- fN -1
o r~ o
m —
o o —
[N m O
fa's m
o _
W CO
(/) o
CC I-
*- — t)
CO
185
Exhibit 3.1.7
Fage 2 or ZT~
CO
cy
co
CO
■a
CO
CO
6h
—
s
CO
< >
1/3 —
C/3
I — — (N \C OC
cc oc tt o vn
— 0_ — r-~ ? r~
t ti o ^ vT e\
rn rn o rn o
rs q in t
— es
CM
r»
t-^
rs
rn
vq
«1
v.
On
r-"
m*
fC
rx
(N
oo
OS
=c
O
as
00
V
V
<*;
— O
wn o u-i
v> in »o
t r ^
r-- rs --t
t o o — n oc
— r— o r-» r*- oo
oc — o rs" so oc
r\ \C i^i in «^
«vn o r-- rs rn
r~ co o
r~ r- o *c r~
OC* DO* — * TT* C\
— rn i^.
col CO
r~ *0 on rs
— o r- vnl
r- o O cc cc r- r- — *; e>
~~ ~ . — — v>
°i ■> — —
v-\ C> rs o —
T — G\ CS — " rr m o] q-T
— (N oo oc <ti - co — rsil
— — t — »n c cn (Nl t\
OTOOO — iOO
— m m o m vtT-ro
>n in oc o
— o oc o
>o r- o
— T* ^ r*41 r^" —
^OOOooc>r--"-oc>
r—unoToooooo
O oc n c ^ v{ o" v{
w n - M r o in
ococrnoorsocown
iNNlMh-r^COOfN
Or— , ( — — O-O O O —
T fS CO Cs O 1*1 o o"
n "O (N T O o rn
— rn fM -"-J-"
^ Si
*o
^ —
«n zrl v= 3 >
Or. °CI SO "I Oc
in n in
■"■"T m o
(N C f, O
OO O OC o rs
O Cn O
— rn rn o"
fS OO O
°c **\
r*3 v-T
•1"
S id 2
ec 7X
o Ol
m *<r cc rn o
v= r» r- cc
o m r*-
w-i r»j *— ,
C nl C:
— =c —
c — cc o
o —
-r <n Ol rn| ^,
o vn co rC
w-i — r* cc f»s
C CN OO CO tv.
~r t x-~ S
C rn — <N —
— tn wn rn
oT r-" m -
T- O CO O
o c» c r~j ^
— rs" —
O M C "rj(
m r*- wn r>i — j <
rn rM rn -r i
c" -r" o" O* ol i
O O O M Ml I
- ». - • g i
rs, rM — — TT1 i
O — • — m r-4
C IN O - C
- T OC (N
— " cm" o »n *x
fN r- C
in oc o m r-^
in Q Sv oo m K
r*1 OC <N CM — or
C\ r~ r- «f -jo,
C n n in —
r- *n s> r- r-*
oc c_ m 9> -r cs
rsj m -c C
O C> O OC
t oc o r-
— * ol
> -
"2 «
§ .1 - o
eo "" = _
S « e» ^
r~ -r r- o oi c_
"i == ~ °. n *n
J> C »1 C W tt"
ri x in n -
^n ' — rn
« ii - I W S
rs r-_ — cm rvi| ^
O" -3"" wn O* vdl
un r m ^
2 M '
O fN MN C
CN — — OC
CC C T,
— fN oc o* mi t\
— r- n fs ^
o w-i -rr —
oo rs — rs
o —
O — vo
^1 > OI> ^
O rs o rn oo
O -T O -r O
o t r-~ tt
m" — " o" o" o"
rn rs o o
•-o wn rs r*-,
O wn oc" —
m oo o rr
O -T O
c/~, O -T
O rn
Is- (N v~i
■n h- v~
o rs — •
»0 rn TT
wn" o" o" oo"
O f* rn XT
t m m
•5 c £
— i_ to
— t> _
r CO VI
K a o
2 a a s
u «» "a c t»
w a
i ^ ^ <j yt
> U
3 £ cB 2
i_ o - - «
W — J± c a ■£ -
m s £ a u' c 5 —
CJ — ^Jt— — u — ^_ c
— p !U.<2ao
f>
I1
T
rsi
SO
ml
Ol
■>
VO
rn
rs
o_
Os
CN
o"
col
V
V
o
wSI
»n
m
«n
•n
r<
r>»
^,
<^
5
Vl
fi)
C
«i
in
>
s
V
n
EC
«/
•= 2
u
S-2
o
E"
sr C
— 1i
es
— ^
"cc
o
S
— Sf
mil
fWe
o t
CS
8"
3
u a-
-5
a
cs
isii
*"
5
1S6
Exhibit 3.1
Page 3 of 4
C/5
C/5
CO
CO
5c
mm
>•
mm
r\
Jm
c*«
C"\
>•
mm
o
u
<
1/1
III
*A
o
o
V.
III
c75
»0
o
CO
— . rs - *c
>C t\ °°' so
•> > s> >
N 3<l N
<>■> <*> ^
On 1^, CN|
oo — . — i
On rs cni on
IN fx — J cc
rs Ol rxj
<n k c t-~
On T
-J rs oo
^
» CSI cn)
§ «s 3
oo — J <a
■~. Ol tx
Ov <" •»
"> vl ln-
pni on in
«/i <a oo
"1 -x
tx On
00 IN
°» "2
rs O
rl
— r-
:> —
NO V.
r*J
~ »/-, IA,
rS — O
rs — —
r-J — rS —
r*l O —
rs — — m
in rs m
T
— -s- on r-
n — o n
~ o^, (— ^, — 1
c- o — r~-
no — n in
rs r- 1 — 00
r»i o «■» r-~
N Cv N O
— rs" 00" o
^ n tN
r~ — r-i rs
on «— o m t~-
r* ei N n (*i
00" — m r- —
n rs o r— t
04 rs on o rn
00 no v. o o
r~ n N J>_ — _
rs r" — — t
rs oc rs T rs
— r> tt 00 r—
«n vo O rs r"i
rM r-^ >n_ rs o_
— ' no rs* rs' rs
00 rs — fN O-
vO K IS f —
— y
5 dl ?
"si 'H 'n?
be
tn CO r
^ 1 ^ z
C -J
~- fi. ■*
a 4 = £ — .
8 |
^ <
S o
- "-I =
o
" "3 S
= u
3 -3
o ~ —
2- "
■ o —
« S ^ «
— _l rs" —
„ — x
_ NO
On «
^ NO"
B3
= U -z
Z3. tJ ■= H
• — - — --j
v. a 2 "C
Nl i> 3 jj
Tn U vi e:
X
V)
UJ
0
■_>
>:
U
LU
u
a u u
* o 5
187
— C <N T
«
T ^ K"
O oo r-
O "T
W*i X (N
O O oo
r- o *^
vt •— * cm
O* o* irT
m — -tr O
— ■ —
^> S-I] -£
- o
^ H ^
t -r w-i
"t. *=j
— OI Oo"
5 *i
o r* o
T O
rs — —
oc rr oc
CO n T tOI >
- ^ *i 5
oo t O r>*
cn rs %n *0 v
^ oo
fN » tt| 2"
■o ^ 1 —
O f h f
cn o r-
» ~ 3 =?
p* t> »nl .J
OO TT — oc
[-» c>* I*- V
(N W - «.
r~ -x_ M -v
v-i — rj ^
p- oo cmI
ooj rs.
Exhibit
Page 5""
3.1
or 5"
— rs,
oo
rs
r-
f °
OC
-»
°v
oc
OO
OC
p-
■»
T
r-
r»
oo
t"-
rn
lC
o_
OO
o
*->
<e
«■<;
*T
CNI
o
so
31
mi
-a
•0
o"
o"
oo
ox
<T
IN
T
a
-a
— —
r» r-
o-. —
rr rvi r-»
~
r-- oc —
\C p-
*r r-j
r- — <q>
p- oc t
o oo oo
^ O o.
— O ,
r-* rv«
1a
? O « &
o co r- t| oc
co i-m_ o_ — i t<
— " o" vo* «rg
oc T — *n ^
1 « Mil i
n-' fs ^
C O >C CT1
O -r- O o< oo
— o-_ -o H oq
rsj «n o CN oc*
— x a n
is n w
r- oi
^> "i ^,
oo O ^.
—J >^
<~" OI
r-i —
2 5
— 'N
fS W, fN
O «^ O
o «*r
oo rs
V=7 TT —
-C -«T O ^1
— fsi OC — O T
sO w^i P"* - fN (*•
rs) — sO
r- e> vn
W-j w '
iri i — r~~ t
•V r ..
c. ^ ^
sC C* ofl rC
- <^ in: J
1
T* — rs,
6*
CO
K 7^ --
— >
1 1
_0 J2
; ; ° O i
t" - r. u ^-
_ J5 ~ S 2P -
S t> c - —
— c « -2
|f 1= is ^
i "3 — -
.5 w o
_ z c
.2 = •= s
S O U9 Wl
£ ill
5 - g o
3 o So E -
3 c S £ 1
-Mm
O ^ Crt
= _o _
= £ 1 e J
0* -
■a 5 u 5-5.
t> w O W CJ
a s -2
188
Exh ib i t 3.1
0(5
5
— OC
m -t
— O
On
-r o*
5J
"1 u~i
"5 O*
O O
© o>
r- cc
— ■
cc" r '
St
oc in
— o
c
—
OG
-T
TT OC
o
rr
oC
On £*
-T
r»
t_ r-
r—
Tf QO_
O T*
m r J
OC no
T *n
\C OC*
OC OC
cc ©
00*
OC o
m o
— -c
leg
<5
os ta 2
Q
o
3 2
x x * M —
'£ f r g s
5 c 5 to £
oo
Ov
o
O O
o m
r-
o>
w-i
, CO
m o
o
O.
fS OO
— o
"T
oo'
r-s o
TT 00*
OC
00
00
e-i
(A
B 2
?2 >0 £
o- s
XXX x —
11 S 1
52 S"S
I
r
a: o
1 RQ
Exhibit 3 .1.9
^ige l or 16
In June of IS 9 1 the Zoological Society Beard of Directors and the
Fecreacion and Park Commission adopted a revised "Mission and Goals for
the San Francisco Zoological Gardens . " Shortly thereafter a
ccxnprehensive review of the ZOO 2000 Master Plan was completed, under
the leadership of the Zoo's new director David E. Anderson. The ZOO
2000 Master Plan and $26 million capital campaign to complete Phase I
was re— established by the Board of Directors.
In February, 1952, the City of San Francisco, facing serious badcet
deficits, asked the Zoological Society to expand its role and take on
responsibility for managing the entire Zoo operation. A year later the
Foard of Supervisors gave conceptual approval, subject to its final
approval of a formal lease Agreement and the Society's ability to
secure a $10 million Founder's Fund.
At July 15, 1993, Lease Agreement approval is pending and the shift to
Society management will commerce Cctober 1, 1993. The Society has $3
million in ccrrmitments and $6.9 million in pending regaests towards the
Founders' Fund, and is prepared meet its obligations under the terms of
the Lease Agreement. A $30 million capital campaign plan has been
prepared to complete Phase I of ZOO 2000. This Five- Year Plan has been
developed to guide the re-birth of the San Francisco Zoological Gardens
and meet the challenges of private management in this unique
partnership with the City of San Francisco.
ASSESSMENT: STATE OF THE ZOO TODAY
In the past two years the Zoo's budget was cut by nearly $1 million, 8
Civil Service positions and 3 Zoo Society positions were cut, and the
Zoo ' s re-accreditation application was tabled by the American
Association of Zoological Parks and Aquariums due to lack of adequate
financial support for the institution. These problems were -were
ckxramented in the media, and resulted in public support for
transferring the Zoo to the Society as a long-term solution. In an
uncertain financial and political climate, the Board of Directors and
donors have hesitated to make major gifts for capital contributions ;
rerovations and construction have been delayed, and attendance has
continued downward to 722,000 (FY '93), dropping 100,000 in a single
year.
190
Exh ib 3 r 3.1 , Q
Page 2 of 16
GOAL #7 LEADERSHIP
To achieve excellence for the San Francisco Zooiocical Gardens th
vise stewardship in the use of resources , ethical manaoemenc and
responsiveness to community needs and concerns.
1994
2 . Develop Beard leadershio and increase particioaticn
- by establishing carmittee organizational structure
effective for large board
- by clarifying Board's role in rronitoring policy
- by increasing use of expertise provided by Board
3 . To increase leadership funerals ing capability of Beard
- formalize evaluation process to increase number of ciirectors
with capability to contribute and raise funds
- establish and increase goals for Board giving as percent of
annual and capital campaigns
4 . To increase stature of San Francisco Zooiocical Gardens
seek volunteers and directors well-known in phdlanthropic ,
corporate and academic community
- increase Zoo Director's participation in top- tiered business,
professional, government and ccrnmunity organizations
5. Establish team management in Animal Care Dept. Plan 1994, in 1995
5. Zoo staff will be participants in professional community.
7 . Develop good union relationships
Personal contacts 1994
Union project for Zoo 1994
Union Family Day at the Zoo 1994
8 . Zoo will be recognized as model for public /private partnership .
- Prooress noted - 1994
TurTiaround noted - 1995
Zoo as local model - 1996
Zoo as national model - 1998
191
CAPITAL PROJECTS BUDGET EST. Page 3 or lb
1. FELINE BREEDING CENTER $800,000
2. LEOPARDS OF ASIA $3,500,000
3. ORANGUTAN EXHI3IT $4,500,000
4 . RENOVATIONS $4,200,000
5. QUARANTINE $2,000,000
6. AFRICAN SAVANNA $10. 000.000
SUBTOTAL $25,000,000
ENDOWMENT FUND $2,000,000
TRANSITION FUND S2 .000.000
TOTAL $30,000,000
AVIAN CONSERVATION CENTER $1,000,000
MONKEY ISLAND ' $4,000,000
192
Exhib it 3.1.9
or 16
5
g
o
O
a;
CL
-J
g
5
rs 2
Uj *~ t
^ 'S <
< u_ S i
5 "J ~»
o
§
0
Uj
CO
Lu — Q.
-C O -J
S ^
Uj
c:
CO
Q
0£
UJ C2>
t— -
UJ Uj uj Q
^ C O <
CL
00
eeAinr
o
CO
i
Oi
isAinr
o
CNl
■
CO
Cj
Cj
i
vy
CD
O
2:
O
00
i
CM
193
LALL JLU XL. _> . X . 7
Page 5 of 16
CAPITAL PROJECTS - 5 YEAR PLAN MILESTONE CO^PLETIC^ DATES
Feline Breeching Center Activities
Planning and Design
EEC Groiincbreaking
Construction Completed
Move Cats to EEC and Open Exhibit
Leooards cf Asia EyJiibit Activities
Planning and Design
Renovate Lynx Cage at Lion House
Australia / Kangaroo area Complete
Demolish Existing Cat Cages (GrouncoreaJcing)
Construction Completed
Move Cats and Open Exhibit
Orangutan Field Station Activities
Plannino and Desicn.
Field Station Groundbreaking
Construction
Open Orangutan Field Station ExhJ-bit
African Savanna Activities
Planning and Design
Construction Completed. . . .
African Savanna Phase Open
Quarantine Facility
Planning and Design. . .
Groundbreaking
Construction Completed
General Activities f Renovations)
Cosmetics and Landscaping at Entrances Complete 30-SEP-S3
Banners and Informational Signage 30-SEP-93
Landscaping and Chain Link Fence 30-SEP-S3
Monkey Island Demo Completed 01-JAN-94
Monkey Island Backfilled and Planted 01-MAR-94
Monkey Island Groundbreaking for New Exhibit
Monkey Island New Exhibit Completed
Monkey Island Lake Trail Complete 01-APR-94
Otter Exhibit Renovation Complete 01-JAN-94
Outdoor Aviary Renovated And 3irds Exhibited 01-APR-94
Bunker Grotto Renovation for Meercat (Complete 01 -APR- 9 4
Education Center Relocation Complete 01-JUN-94
Lion House Open to Public * 30-SEP-93
Penguin / Elephant Area Renovation Complete 01 -MAY- 9 4
30-SEP-93
01-CCT-93
01-APE-94
01-MAY-94
31-AUC-93
01 -MAY- 9 4
01 -MAY- 9 4
01-JUN-94
30-APR-95
01-JUN-95
01 -JAN- 9 4
01-JUL-95
01-JUL-95
01-JUL-95
01-JUL-SS
01-JUL-95
01-JUL-98
01-JUL-93
01-JAN-95
01-JAN-9S
01-JUL-97
194
ZONE A
LEOPARD DEPENDENT ITEMS
BUDGET
AUST. / ROO RENOVATIONS $75 000
LYNX CAGE AT LION HOUSE $50," 000
ZE3RA YARD (CATWALK TO FBC) INC. IN F3C
OPEN LION HOUSE P.P. INC. IN LH (G)
GREY ROO RELOCATION INC. IN AUST.
ZONE 3
MAIN WALKWAY LOOP
FLAMINGO
SIAMANGS/3IRDS
KOALAS
MONKEY ISLAND DEMO
LAKE TRAIL
BUNKER GROTTOS
PENGUIN/ELEPHANT AREA
OTTER
TRIPLE GROTTO
ZONE C
ENTRANCE / AMENITIES
NEW RESTROOMS (.ADA)
ENTRANCES (N k S)
AMENITIES (ADA)
MOTHERS BLDG/PLAYF I ELD
ZOO 2000 STORY - SIGNAGE
$125,000
$50,000
$10,000
$175,000
$50,000
$100,000
$60,000
$25,000
$175,000
$350,000
$150,000
$80,000
$120,000
$150,000
ZONE F
SECONDARY LOOP
BACKSTRING
3LACK3UCK
NY A LA
WATER BUFFALO
ZONE G
SECONDARY LOOP
ELEPHANT HOUSE PH2
AFRICAN SCENE
ASIAN RHINO
LION HOUSE / GROTTOS
ZONE H
SECONDARY LOOP
COR I LLAS
MUSK OX
POOL PICNIC AREA
EMPLOYEE PARKING
WILD DOGS
ZONE I
SECONDARY LOOP
CHILDRENS ZOO
ANIMAL RESOURCE CENTER
CAROUSEL
RESEARCH
Exhibit 3.1.9
Pa?e 6 o£ 16
BUDGET EST
$50 , 000
$40,000
$20,000
$20, 000
$250 , 000
$50,000
$50 , 000
$30,000
$25 , 000
$20,000
$50,000
$20,000
S50,000
$75,000
$10,000
$100,000
$?5 ' nno
ZONE D
SECONDARY LOOP
INDOOR AVIARY
OUTDOOR AVIARY
SEAL IONS
PDC
BEAR GROTTOS
$50,000
$100,000
$50,000
$150,000
$25,000
SU3T0TAL F - I
ZONE J
FINANCED ACTIVITIES
COSTS NOT INCLUDED
PHONE SYSTEM
ZE3RA TRAINS
$1 ,035,000
EST. $150,000
EST. $200,000
ZONE E
OPERATIONAL / MISC.
EDUCATION MOVE/EQUIPMENT
MAINTENANCE SHOPS
VEHICLE PORT
HOSPITAL
ADMINISTRATION
GIRAFFE
GG? BISON
$250,000
$450,000
$25,000
$75,000
$100,000
$20,000
si ?5 . non
SUBTOTAL A - E
$3,165,000 TOTAL RENOVATIONS A-J
$4 , 200,000
195
Exhibit 3 .1.9
^age 7 of 16
CAPITAL PROJECT PLANNING
A. VISITOR PATHWAYS.
A plan to best utilize existing pathways in coordinating a
thematical visitor experience has been developed. The concent is a
central or main loop accessible from both entrances with secondary
loops branching off into a thematical exhibit experience . The main
loop concentrates on high profile areas such as the lion house,
elephant house and plaza areas. The five secondary locos
identified will provide a more geographic theme experience. The
routing plan layout is as shown on the attached plan and described
below:
Main Loop - The main loop will bring visitors from each entrance
to a main corridor around the elephant house.
Secondary Loops - These loops will route visitors through five
thematical areas which are:
1. Childrens Zoo
2 . I^cropods and Aviary
3 . Bears and Africa
4. Cats and Asia
3. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PRIORITIES
The projects planned for Phase I are based on the initial capital
campaign of $30 million and institutional needs. The priority is
as follows:
1. Feline Conservation Center - The feline conservation center
is a small cat facility. It will house from 9 to 12 animals
and is located next to what was formerly known as the
Directors House. This facility is required to provide new
homes for all the current smell cats during construction of
the new Leooards of Asia Exhibit. Some of these animals will
move into the new Leopard exhibit; others will remain in the
FCC. In the future the FCC will specialize in otrsr species
of cats .
2 . Leopards of Asia - This exhibit is based on the conceptual
designs from The Portico Group. It will replace our existing
deteriorating small cat housing. It is located at the ctirrent
cat exhibit area and expands to include the current grey
kangaroo area.
3 . Orangutan Exhibit - the Orangutan exhibit is based on the
current conceptual design by the Portico Group and addresses
the needs for improved facilities to manage these primates.
It includes an interpretive area Field Station. It is located
196
Exhibit 3.1. 9
ir'age 8 of 16
in the far eastern comer near the current bear grottos ard
llama exhibit -
4 . Renovations - These are zoo wide renovations and improvements
necessary to address a good portion of public, animal and
staff needs as well as esthetic enhancements.
5 . Quarantine Facility - This is a new veterinary facility
necessary to provide proper care and health management of
current and future animals both entering and leaving the Zoo.
It is necessary to have this facility operational in order to
manage the animal collection during the course of masterplan
development .
6 . African Savanna - This is the initial expansion phase of ZOO
2000. It encompasses a multi-species African savanna complex.
This project will completely renovate an area from the
current Avian Conservation Center to Gorilla World. The new
entrance should be cor^tructed at the same time to mkaximize
the visitor experience and circulation.
C. PLANS FCR CURRENTLY EMPTY EXHIBIT SPACE
Current emoty exhibit space will be immediately Improved or used
as follows:
PDC Aviary Remove mesh and develop
botanical showcase
Lion Grottos Relocate animals as follows,
from west to east: White
tiger, Siberians, suma trans
and African lions.
South "3unker" Grottos
North "Bunker" Grotto
Lion House Exterior Cage
Lion House interior
Penguin rearing / mural yards
Interim use until open:
- Penguin rearing yard
- Mural yard
Elephant House Interior
- Short term
Demolish and landscape.
Renovate for small mammal.
Lynx Exhibit
Develop program for all day
use: - Cpen restroorns
- Exhibit Gallery
- Children's conservation
science project display.
Cpen to Asian Elephants
To be determined
Swans
Storage area
197
.Exhibit 3.1 g
P^Fe y or 16"
Monkey Island
- Short term Demolish, landscape,
mini-phase 1 with animals
- Long term Gateway to South America
Lower Lake
- South end Close north portion of path
around Monkey Island and coen
lake perimeter trail along the
lake and take advantage of the
view
- North end Retrofit for grey kangaroo
Outdoor Aviary Replace exterior mesh and
develop for South American
birds
d. shutug anb&ls
Shifting of existing animals is required for capital improvements
and establishing the thematic visitor experience.
Move grey kangaroos to north portion of the lower lake.
Moving of the grey kangaroos is required before the Leonard
exhibit construction can begin.
Move the ostrich to African area, acquire mates
Move the llamas to the old cheetah area or surplus them.
198
Exhibit 3.1.9
i^age 10 of 16
RZNOVA.TICN PRIORITIES.
The main objectives of tine renovation projects are to address
safety issues for the public staff and animals, develop geographic
areas as much as possible with the current collection, and General
enhancement of the institution. In addition consideration is civen
to bcrw each renovation will impact the following:
Reduction of the "caged" feeling of exhibits
Develop a more "natural" exhibit presentation
Geographical grouping of animals
Relationship to masterplan
Timing of major capital projects
Public comfort
Revenue impact
Animal status
The renovations have been divided into 10 zones. The renovations
in each zone are related based on the objectives listed above. The
10 zones established are labeled ZONE A through J.
ZONE A renovations are projects ciirectly related the Leopards of
Asia exhibit. These must be completed before construction of this
new exhibit.
ZONE 3 projects are all centered around the planned central
visitor pathway loop. All the identified renovations are in long
term high visibility areas. This zone also addresses a large
portion of public, staff and animal needs.
ZONE C is primarily related to visitor amenities.
ZONES D, r , G, H and I encompass the secondary visitor pathway
loops .
ZONE E renovations incorporate operational needs and satellite
areas.
ZONE J are major equipment needs - Zebra Train and telephone
system, for which financing would be available.
ZONE A
1. Australia / Macropod Area
New fencing, landscaping and irrigation.
Graphics .
Grey Kangaroo exhibit - north end of lower lake.
Develop mixed exhibit.
This zone basically involves ^working of the entire area as far
as fencing and grading, and providing new animal shelters.
199
Exhibit 3.1.9
rage 11 of 16
2 . Lynx exhibit at lion house
Replace mesh and install viewing glass .
— Paint.
Rework interior into suitable habitat.
Enrichment.
Rework night quarters.
3 . Zebra Paddocks
Rework fence line and develop for feline center
"catwalk" access.
4. Open Lion House 10-5 (Presently only open 2-3 for feedinc) .
Lion house restroom will have to be open to the oubiic
because the Leopard of Asia exhibit requires the*
demolition of the restrocm facility by the arey
kangaroos.
Graphics and possible door rework for access.
Interior space would be available for gallery &
education.
ZONE B
5 . Plaza
Additional table/umbrella seating.
Drinking fountain.
Landscaping.
- Founders ' Fund recognition area
6 . Flamingo Exhibit
Renovate in-house to clean up area and provide nesting.
Kajor renovation to occur with siamang/bird string.
Siamangs / Birds
Paint framing and structure.
Trim trees and add landscaping.
Rework electrical and provide new heaters.
Address rodent proofing.
9. Monkey Island (short term)
Demolish and remove existing rockwork and framing.
Demolish old night quarters.
- Reolace railing.
Develop landscape plan.
Close off north portion of walkway.
10. Lake Trail
Block off tunnel entrance to Monkey Island.
Clear old service path and continue around lake
perimeter with new path to open up lake view and
experience,
landscaping.
200
Exhibit 3.1.9
r'age 12 or 16
11. Bunker Grottos
Demolish South and landscape out.
Renovate North for small mammal.
Landscape.
12. Penguin Plaza (Asian Elephant area)
Pevork and paint rails and handrail system.
Repair walkway (paving) .
Landscape and irrigation.
13 . Otter Exhibit
Rework pool water lines.
Renovate island, rock work, landscape.
Add enrichment.
Provide night quarters.
Esthetically enhance, reduce asphalt, plant.
14. Triple Grotto
Landscaping (Completed) .
Keeper work area.
"Hot Spots" to grottos.
Rework electrical service.
Re-roof structure.
Paint structures.
Graphics and Decent Area.
ZONE C
15. New Restrooms
Develop new restrooms, demolish Playfield, under ADA
requirements .
15. Entrances (North and South)
Signage at Sloat and Skyline.
Repair perimeter fencing.
landscaping along Sloat fencing.
Handicapped ramp from Sloat to ticket booths.
New turnstiles.
Lighting .
Landscaping.
Graphics .
Have city repair/replace Sloat median fencing.
17 . Amenities
New waste receptacles, baby changing tables, heat lamps,
signage, corectionals , lockers for public use, etc.
18. Mothers building / Playfield area
Improve restrccrn.
Handicapped access to gift shop.
Landscaping.
Stroller / cart storage.
Public service graphics.
Childrens zoo entrance improvements .
201
Exhibit 3.1 Q
Page 13 of 16:
19. Zoo 2000 Story
20. Interpretative ADA
Identify handicapped routes, facilities and amenities
throughout institution.
zcns d
21. Lndocr Aviary
Provide bird, holding area,
rodent -proof ing .
repair rockwork and pool,
review lighting and electrical.
Graphics .
22 . Outdoor Aviary
remove exterior and replace mesh structure,
retrofit to avian exhibit, South American theme.
Petair tool .
Landscaping .
23. Sealions
Seal keeper / food prep area,
resurface / seal pool.
Retrofit rockwork.
Graphics .
remove asphalt, create viewing, landscape.
24. ?DC
repair corrosion on exterior structure and paint.
Fix up aviary and exhibit birds.
Replace drinking fountain.
Remove aviary mesh and develop horticultural showcase ■
2 5 . Bear 'Grottos
Resurface pools .
Repair pool drain lines and valves.
Enrichment (i.e. logs / trees ) .
Collection system for testing pool water.
Rework sliding night quarter doors.
ZCKE E
25. Education center relocation
Relocate education facilities to directors house area.
kzcess from zoo road.
27. Maintenance Shops
New maintenance shop, consider prefab, storage.
23. Vehicle Port
New covered area for institutional vehicles and
eauitment to orotect them from environment.
202
Exhibit 3 .1.9
Fage 14.. of 16
29 . Hospital
Upgrade electrical .
Cover holding pens.
Repair roof.
3 0 . Adminis tration
Office trailers.
Landscaoing.
31. Giraffe Exhibit
Rework doors.
Rework fence and public view rail.
32. GGP Bison
>iew viewing areas with graphics.
New feed manger.
" Keeper service area .
Graphics .
ZCNE F
33. Backstring
Relocate llamas.
Rework fencing to contain rhinos.
Demolish llama yard pool.
Fencing and grading.
Remove rail along pathway.
Landscaping.
34 . Blackbuck
Rework fencing, add landscaping.
Provide viewing areas. Remove fence and contain animal
by moat.
34. Nyala
Same as blackbuck.
35. Water Buffalo
Rework fencing.
ZCNE G
36. Elephant House Phase II
Install elephant containment structure (i.e. squeeze
system) .
Reinforce structure as necessary.
Upgrade hydraulic system on doors and gates.
Remove concrete yard for African elephant exhibit.
Floor heat system.
203
Exhibit 3.1.9
Page 15 . of T(d
27 . African Scene
Remove handrail and chain link along pathways.
Fix planters, add landscaping.
Open up elephant exhibit to rhino.
Rework night quarters .
Re-roof facility.
Provide ecuicment access .
38. Asian Rhino
Improve containment barrier.
Repair pool.
Grade exhibit and add rocks.
39. Lion House / Grottos (exterior)
Clean up and landscape.
Repair irrigation system.
Paint (interior and exterior).
Precare interior for ^ 3 day use.
Graphics .
Rodent / Gull control.
ZCMS H
40. Gorillas
Graphics .
Add "hot spots . "
Repair stream system.
Rework video system.
41. Musk Ox
Repair fencing and holding pens .
42 . Picnic area
Clean and landscape.
Set up for group functions.
43. Employee Parking Area
Clean up and landscape.
44. "wild Dogs - add interpretive, landscape irnprovements .
ZCNE I
45. Cnildrens Zoo
Provide handicapped access as necessary.
Rework area inside entrance to an exhibit.
Remove castle.
Paint facilities as needed.
Improve nature trail and stations.
Graphics .
Grain storace.
204
Exhibit 3.1.9
rage lb or 16
45. Avian Conservation Center
Possible tertiary mitigation.
47. Animal Resource Center
Minor improvements , plan new facility for C . Z . area .
48. Carousel
Upgrade mechanics (gears, shaft, etc.).
Restore animals.
- Repair and repaint structure.
49. Research
Add nodular building adjacent to F2C and Education Deot.
ZCNE J
50. Financed activities
Phone system / institution ccntnunications .
New Zebra Trains.
205
SAU TRANCISCO
January 3, 2000
Harvey Rose
Board of Supervisors' Budget Analyst
1 3 90 Market Street, Suite 1025
San Francisco, C A 94102
Dear Mr. Rose:
The San Francisco Zoological Society acknowledges and thanks the Budget Analyst for
the Performance Audit of the San Francisco Zoo and appreciates the opportunity to
respond. This audit helped us reflect on our progress and focus our plans for the future,
and we are rapidly implementing the recommendations that continue our progress.
We are in the midst of a complex transformation of a Zoo that was in decline and our
aspirations for the new Zoo are high.
We are pleased to see three major themes in the audit:
1 . Confirmation of significant progress, particularly in the area of animal care;
2. Encouragement to continue to improve the Zoo; and
3 . Affirmation that plans for the New Zoo are sound.
For years, the San Francisco Zoo has played a valuable role in the lives of millions of
people in the Bay Area and beyond. Nevertheless, through many of its years, the Zoo
was under-funded and neglected. Only the hard work and determination of Civil Service
and Society staff kept this much-loved institution functioning in the early 1990's. The
transformation from an outdated facility to a modern, successful Zoo began in 1993 with
the signing of the Expanded Partnership, a management lease agreement through which
the San Francisco Zoological Society accepted responsibility for managing the Zoo. The
efforts and dedication of the Board of Directors, staff, and many volunteers have reversed
the decline that jeopardized the Zoo's accreditation by the American Zoo and Aquarium
Association (AZA).
The citizens of San Francisco strongly endorsed revitalizing the Zoo by passing
Proposition C, the Zoo Bond, in June 1997. We are grateful for this vote of confidence
and for the bond funds, which will be augmented by over $25 million raised by the
Zoological Society. The turnaround of the Zoo is far from complete, but with support of
the citizens of San Francisco, our generous donors, and committed staff we are on the
path to creating an exciting new Zoo that advances conservation.
Confirmation of Progress
Progress at the Zoo has resulted in improvements for all of our major constituents: the
Animals, our Visitors, the Global Conservation Community and our partner, the City of
San Francisco.
The San Francisco Zoological Society
1 Zoo Road
San Francisco, CA 94152.-1098
(415) 753-7080
Fax (415) 681-2059
1 r\C
Page 2
Dr. Joel Parrott, Director of the Oakland Zoo and an expert consultant selected by the
auditor, noted that "The Zoo and the quality of animal care have improved since the
SFZS assumed management in 1993." We are particularly pleased to see the
acknowledgement that "veterinary care at the San Francisco Zoo is excellent." Assuring
the well being of the animals is our primary concern, and we have devoted significant
resources and attention to that goal. The report confirms independent AZA accreditation
findings: the Zoo is on the right path and a broad-based recover)' is well underway.
The turnaround is touching all aspects of the Zoo. New exhibits, renovations to exhibits,
and enhanced visitor service facilities contributed to an attendance increase of over 20%.
Increasing attendance has allowed us to keep ticket prices at levels the Budget Analyst
describes as "quite reasonable" while expanding free access to the Zoo and increasing
education and conservation programs. Surveys show that over 90% of visitors to the Zoo
rate their overall satisfaction with their visit as good or excellent.
In addition to serving the local community, the Zoo has made important contributions to
conservation and science around the world. The Zoo actively participates in field
conservation programs such as those in Madagascar. Our veterinary staff contributes to
scientific research in the diagnosis and treatment of disease in exotic animals. Our
participation in Species Survival Plans (SSP) and significant success in breeding
programs advances the conservation of endangered species such as the lowland gorilla,
bald eagle, black rhinoceros, snow leopard and ring-tailed lemur.
Every achievement of the Zoo enhances its value as an asset of the City of San Francisco.
Our Partnership has resulted in a vastly improved and financially viable Zoo. The Zoo
was re-accredited by the AZA in 1994 and 1998. Over the last 6 Vi years, the Society
raised over $47.5 million in private contributions and pledges in its drive to transform the
Zoo. Our $25 million capital campaign, initiated in 1997, now stands at over $21
million, and we expect to reach our goal by December 2000.
Progress has not come easily. It became clear early in the Partnership that the
combination of deteriorated facilities and poor public perception of the Zoo would
require evolving strategies to carry out the transformation. This culminated in the
coordinated Zoo Bond and Capital Campaign in 1997. The success of these two
initiatives set us on the road to financial and rebuilding success. The 2Vi year delay in
gaining access to the bond funds (caused by the 49er stadium bond lawsuit) prevented us
from reaching aggressive early targets. We are relieved those funds finally are available.
While the current construction boom will put pressure on construction costs, we will
continue to develop our plans to meet our rebuilding goals. We began construction of the
New Zoo in the fall of 1999 with the groundbreaking for our first facility, the new
Animal Resource Center.
207
Encouragement to Continue to Improve the Zoo
Page 3
The audit report includes many ideas and recommendations. Not surprisingly, many of
the recommendations highlight issues that were recognized as challenges even before the
Partnership. Over the past six years, as resources became available, we addressed the
highest priority needs. This has resulted in significant progress, and we will continue to
tackle challenges and implement solutions.
Because of the cooperative working relationship with the audit team, findings were
discussed throughout the audit process. Many of the recommendations involved areas in
which we already have begun making changes such as cash handling, purchasing,
facilities maintenance, personnel management, invoicing, capital projects, and USDA
relations. For example, all of the issues raised by the USDA in their last visit have been
addressed, and we are negotiating lower capital project fees for the Phase II construction
program.
Although we question some analyses and recommendations, we are committed to
ensuring the Zoo makes the best possible use of the audit findings. We will continue to
assess all of the recommendations in detail and implement those that enhance the Zoo.
Sound Plans for the Future
We share the perspective of the voters, AZA, USDA and the Budget Analyst that the
greatest obstacle to becoming a much better Zoo is the aged physical facilities.
Dr. Parrott concluded that "Phase II (the planned construction program) will address
many of the critical concerns of the USDA and many of the worst exhibits . . . This is a
clear sign that Zoo management is aware of the deficiencies and is actively addressing the
problems." These conclusions echo the feedback we independently received from the
directors of the highly respected zoos in San Diego, New Orleans, and Denver when they
reviewed the plans at our request in 1997.
The new San Francisco Zoo will be characterized by naturalistic habitats that support
multiple species in typical social groupings. In collaboration with our animal keepers, we
are designing exhibits that meet the highest standards for animals, visitors, and staff. As
we add facilities, we will dramatically increase the number of animals and add new
species. In addition to building major new exhibits such as Lemur Forest, Africa
Savanna, and the Great Ape Forest, we will continue to explore creative, lower cost
renovations to maximize the impact of our rebuilding program.
The comfort of Zoo visitors is an important consideration in the renovations. We will
add new parking, restrooms, visitor sendee facilities, and indoor dining. The new
Education Center, adjacent to our expanded Children's Zoo, will better serve the children
and families who rely on the Zoo for learning and entertainment.
208
Page 4
The Zoological Society appreciates the time and effort you and your team devoted to
conducting and preparing this audit, and we value the opportunity to review the Zoo's
progress and plans.
The Zoological Society will continue on its path of creating a globally recognized Zoo
that is a credit to our community. We have dedicated our efforts toward creating an
institution that contributes to education and conservation in a manner never possible with
the aged facilities now being replaced. The success of the Partnership Agreement can be
seen in every way. Our committed and respected staff will continue to work hard to
provide new exhibits, healthy animals, greater visitor satisfaction, increased attendance,
and award-winning education programs.
Sincerely,
David E. Anderson
Zoo Director
Chairman, Board of Directors
209
SF REC PhRK
415 831 2033
P. 02/02
City and County of San Francisco Recreation and Park Department
MEMORANDUM
DATE: December 29, 1999
TO: Stan Jones
Budget Analyst
FROM: JoelRobir^n/A0)
Acting General NEaasger
PREPARED BY: Jaci Fong <$p
CC: Mary King-Gorky
SUBJECT: Performance Andit of the San Francisco Zoo
The Recreation and Park Department has reviewed your draft of the Performance Audit of the
San Francisco Zoo, dated December 1999, and generally agree with the findings and
recommendations of the Budget Analyst Staff will work with the San Francis Zoological
Society, within the parameters of our management agreement, to address t 1 issues and
recommendations identified in the Performance Audit
In response to your specific recommendations to the Recreation and Park Department Staff will
take the following actions:
Recommendation:
1.1.15 Allocate greater resources to the bison facility. The site itself actually has exceptional
potential
Response:
The Department must constantly weigh the multitude of demands for the limited capital
resources we have available to address the requirements of its constituents and aging
infrastructure. Through the budget process we will request additional funds to address
the long-term modifications and improvements recommended in Attachment II.
Recommendation:
1.1.16 Implement the Bison Exhibit minor maintenance and long-tern modification
improvements contained in Attachment II to this report section.
McLaren Lodge, Golden Gate Park
501 Stanyan Street
San Francisco, CA 941 17-1 898
FAX: (415) 831-2099
Phone: (415) 831-2700
TOTAL P. 02
210
Response:
Attachment II
ZJjson Exhibit Minor Maintenance
Projected completion date
Main Field and Feed Area
• Hay manger /feeder: Some of the 2 "x 4 " slats and top rail need replacement. Wood needs to
• By January' 31, 2000
be sealed or repainted.
• Grading: Ada substrate and grade the area around the water trough and the feed pad.
• By rebruary 29. 2000
• Remove blackberry bramble from the interior oj the jeed storage area.
• By January 3 1 , 2000
• Install signposts at regular intervals to accommodate bison information signs. Requires
• By April 15,2000
Braille.
• Perimeter fence repairs.
• By April 15, 2000
• Re-alignment of all gates so that space between the gales and the ground is less than three
• By February 29, 2000
inches.
• Install a hose bib in keeper science area, so we can wash the hay manger.
• By February 29, 2000
West Holding Paddock
• Hay manger/feeder needs replacement or extensive repair.
• By March 3 1 , 2000
• Install a hose bib next to the water trough so that it can be more easily sen'iced.
• By February 29, 2000
• Re-stiing the perimeter hot wire.
• By June 30, 2000
Bison Exhibit Long-Term Modifications
• Re-configuration of the holding paddock and main exhibit. Include incorporation of a cattle
• Pending funding
chute leading to a restraint de\>ice and loading dock. Maintain a bison holding area
availability.
separate from the main field.
• Addition of a cattle restraint chute/squeeze for ease of medical procedures.
• Pending funding
availability.
• A quarantine/isolation paddock that is self contained including a jeed area, sheltei, and
• Same as above
solid perimeter barriers.
• Upgrade perimeter fencing so that it is uniform. Tlie fence should be a double fence with a
• By June 30, 2000
12-joot buffer zone between the bison and the public.
• Bison access to shelter/shade at all times regardless of where they are held. Include the
• Completed
addition of shaded areas, i.e., trees in the mam field paddock.
• Addition of behavioral and environmental enrichment opportunities for the bison including
• Completed
rocks, stumps, and limbs for rubbing.
• Permanent hay storage, food preparation area, and tool storage facility.
• Pending funding
• Installation of communication devices, telephone and a radio base station.
• Pending funding
• Upgrade access to power for tools and veterinary equipment.
• Pending funding
• Addition of washroom and bathroom facilities for the animal care staff.
• GGP Master Plan issue
• Installation of appropriate signage and graphics and Braille translation.
• By April 15, 1999
Recommendation:
3.2.1 Airange for the Zoo to be directly billed for sewer service and light, heat and power costs
by the Clean Water Department and Bureau of Light, Heat and Power, respectively. This
should expedite timely payment by the Zoological Society and fi-ee Recreation and Park
staff to devote more labor intensive time to billing and collection procedures for
maintenance and payroll costs. The Recreation and Park Commission budget should be
adjusted accordingly.
211
Response:
Staff will investigate this suggestion, and make this request of the PUC.
Recommendation:
3.2.2 Set up and maintain a date stamping procedure to better manage, control, and expedite
payments by the Society and facilitate timely invoicing by the Department.
Response:
Approximately 3 years ago, the Department implemented new procedures to insure the
timely processing of payments. Department policy is to process any payments received
within 24 hours. In addition, billing for maintenance and payroll costs at the Zoo is now
done on a monthly basis by revenue staff. The Zoological Society will be reminded that
per the terms of our management agreement, payments are due within 30 days. If
payments are not received within 30 days, Staff will follow-up with the Zoo, and request
payment both by phone and in writing as appropriate.
Recommendation:
3.3.2 De\>elop a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to clarify specific amounts of
coverage and minimum limits for Malpractice Liability Insurance and Commercial
Crime Insurance
Response:
Staff will discuss this recommendation with the Zoological Society. If they are in
agreement, Staff will draft a Memorandum of Understanding for approval by the
Recreation and Park Commission.
Recommendation:
3.3.3 De\'elop an MOU providing that the Zoological Society maintain Property Insurance of
City -owned buildings for the duration of the Management Agreement.
Response:
The Zoological Society presently provides this insurance on a voluntary basis. They
have indicated that they would not agree to an agreement making this insurance
mandatory. If we can negotiate an agreement, Staff will draft a Memorandum of
Understanding for approval by the Recreation and Park Commission.
Recommendation:
3.3.4 De\>elop an MOU to provide that insurance coverage reviews occur eveiy two years, or
sooner if wairanted by a substantial change in circumstances.
Response:
Staff will discuss this recommendation with the Zoological Society. If they are in
agreement, Staff will draft a Memorandum of Understanding for approval by the
Recreation and Park Commission.
Recommendation to the Recreation and Park Commission:
3.4.1 Ensure that three members of the Recreation and Park Commission attend each and
every meeting of the Joint Zoo Committee.
212
Response:
Although this recommendation was not made directly to the Department, Staff will
communicate the concern of the Budget Analyst to the Recreation and Park
Commission, through the Commission Secretary.
213
Live Music
Archive
Librivox
Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland
Museum of Art
Internet
Arcade
Console Living Room
Open Library
American
Libraries
TV News
Understanding
9/11